Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Brixham Gas and Electricity Bill,

Romford Gas Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Forfar Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Ede: asked the Prime Minister (1) what is His Majesty's Government's estimate of the numbers of men of other than Spanish nationality who have served in or with the armed forces of the Spanish Government and the insurgents, respectively; and what proportion they bear in each case to the total force;
(2) what is His Majesty's Government's estimate of the number of men enrolled in the armed forces of governments outside Spain who have served in or with the armed forces of the Spanish Government and the insurgents, respectively; and what proportion they bear in each case to the total force?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I would remind the hon. Member that under the present scheme of the Non-Intervention Committee commissions are to be sent to Spain for the purpose of making such estimates, and in advance of that information I have no detailed material upon which to base a statement.

Mr. Ede: When does the hon. Member anticipate that these commissions will leave for Spain?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will be aware that the Non-Intervention Committee is discussing this matter, and I hope that further progress will be made.

Mr. Ede: If I put down a question for the day after the House resumes after the Easter Recess will the hon. Member be able to give me an answer?

Mr. Butler: I do not know if progress will be made by that date.

Mr. Ede: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have made representations to any Power, and, if so, to whom, with regard to military works carried out and guns placed in the neighbourhood of Gibraltar; and, if not, whether it is contemplated that such representations shall be made?

Mr. Butler: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. His Majesty' s Government, however, are carefully watching the situation. I would, in this connexion, refer the hon. Member to a statement made on 27th July last by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to the effect that after carefully considering the matter, His Majesty's Government did not consider there was any reason for raising the question. I am not aware of any alteration in the situation since then which would justify a change of attitude on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Ede: Has the hon. Member any information about anything?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is there any new information except that which was given by the Under-Secretary and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence on the occasion referred to?

Mr. Butler: Not on this particular subject.

Duchess of Atholl: Has the hon. Member seen the statement to which reference was made in another place, showing that there has been a considerable increase of the fortifications in various places since the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence made his statement last July?

Mr. Butler: I have considered all these points and I have given an answer which, I think, represents the position of the Government.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of belligerent rights being granted to General Franco's forces, the Nyon control system will be continued?

Mr. Butler: In the view of His Majesty's Government the reasons for the maintenance of the Nyon patrols are quite independent of the question of the grant or withholding of belligerent rights.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do I understand that we are going to grant belligerent rights to people whom we regard as pirates?

Duchess of Atholl: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the transfer of destroyers from the Italian Navy to General Franco's and the fact that such transfers are forbidden under the London Treaty of 1930, to which Italy is a party, he will make it a condition of any agreement with Italy that such destroyers and any other ships so transferred shall be at once recalled to the Italian Navy?

Mr. Butler: The London Naval Treaty of 1930, to which Italy was a party, expired on 31st December, 1936. Italy is not a party to the Naval Treaty signed in London on 25th March, 1936, and is. therefore, not bound by Article 22 of that Treaty which prohibits the transfer of vessels of war to the navies of other Powers.

Duchess of Atholl: Even if Italy was not a party to the Treaty, does the hon. Member not consider it a very serious thing if we take no notice of an admitted transfer of ships from the Italian Navy to the Spanish insurgent navy?

Duchess of Atholl: asked the Prime Minister whether all persons in the employment of His Majesty's Government at ports in Spain or the Spanish possessions and all observers under the Non-Intervention Committee have been instructed to report any arrivals of Italian war personnel or material at such ports; if so, on what date or dates such instructions were sent; and will he state the numbers of such persons and observers who have reported the arrival of such personnel or material in such a port since 21st February, the number who have reported no arrivals, and the number who made no report, giving the place where stationed in each case?

Mr. Butler: As regards persons in the employment of His Majesty's Government, it would clearly be impossible for them to carry out their duties in any part of Spain in present conditions if the nature of confidential instructions sent to them or of reports received from them were made public, and I am not, therefore, prepared to give details of the kind indicated in the question. The international observers report to the Non-Intervention Board by whom they are employed.

Duchess of Atholl: If it is so difficult for consuls to send information, is the hon. Member sure that there is no foundation—as he said to me last week in reply to a question—for the statement that Italian vessels have been gathering considerable war material in various ports in Spain since 21st February?

Mr. Butler: I never said that it was difficult for consuls to send information. I said that it was impossible to publish confidential instructions to them or the reports received from them.

Mr. T. Williams: Have they been instructed not to send in any reports?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any reports or accounts of the recent insurgent advance in Catalonia from His Majesty's military attachés or representatives there?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: In those accounts, is any report given with regard to the war material used on either side?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman will realise that much of the information contained in these reports is inevitably of a confidential nature. It is not possible to give publicity to that confidential information.

Mr. Davidson: Do the Government consider information with regard to increased war material on one side or the other as being confidential, and further, how does the Prime Minister expect the House to come to any decision with regard to an agreement if such information is withheld from it?

Mr. Butler: It would be quite without precedent to publish reports of military attachés

Mr. Davidson: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has replied to the question.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister the total number of Italian troops and the quantity of war material withdrawn from Spain since the inception of the British-Italian talks?

Mr. Butler: I regret that I have no information to show whether any such withdrawal has taken place, or, if so, in what quantities.

Mr. Davidson: Have the Government taken any measures to ascertain whether, in the event of an agreement being arrived at, withdrawal will take place or not?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, as the Prime Minister has said, it was never demanded or expected of the Italian Government that they should effect unilateral withdrawal.

Mr. Riley: asked the Prime Minister whether any of His Majesty's representatives in Spain have reported the arrival in Spain of Italian or German aeroplanes, pilots, or other military categories, or quantities of munitions from either Germany or Italy, since 1st March, 1938?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Adjournment on 11th April.

Mr. Riley: May I ask what it is that His Majesty's representatives do in Spain? Do they make reports about these matters?

Mr. Gallacher: Why do we not get some information?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether the Non-Intervention Committee has accepted the principle that no breaches of non-intervention should be reported to it unless they can be shown to have materially affected the position in Spain; and whether the same principle was understood by His Majesty's Government to apply to the understanding between them and the Italian Government that the Italian forces fighting in Spain should not be augmented while

the Anglo-Italian conversations were proceeding?

Mr. Butler: The conditions governing the submission of alleged breaches of the Non-Intervention Agreement to the Non-Intervention Committee, were explained on 30th March in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland). As regards the second half of the question, I would refer the hon. Lady to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 24th March.

Miss Rathbone: Was not the reply given by the Prime Minister on Monday to questions by various hon. Members related to recent arrivals of Italian material in Spain, and does not his answer alter the conditions?

Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to ask supplementary questions in regard to a matter which another hon. Member has given notice that he intends to raise on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: It is the general practice that when notice is given by an hon. Member that he intends to raise a question on the Adjournment, no further questions are asked concerning it.

Miss Rathbone: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that it is not the same question? I am now referring to the answer of the Prime Minister on Monday that he had no reason to believe that recent importations of Italian and German material into Spain had materially altered that position. Is not that laying down the principle that breaches of non-intervention are only taken account of when they materially alter the position?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Notice has been given to raise the question of war material going into Spain. The hon. Lady raised a question as to the principles guiding the decisions of the Non-Intervention Committee. I ask how it is possible, in the words of the prize fool of this House, to connect those two questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

MINORITIES TREATIES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of making it clear that the


subject of the treatment of minorities in all countries can, in the opinion of the British Government, be most effectively dealt with through the machinery of the League of Nations, and that it is not desirable to isolate particular minorities for special treatment?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have on many occasions made known their interest in the observance and effective working of the procedure laid down by the Council of the League of Nations for the operation of the minorities treaties in force.

Mr. Mander: May I assume that the Government are not in favour of some particular minority such as the Sudeten-Deutsch being picked out for the purpose of hostile propaganda?

Mr. Butler: The Government will consider each problem as it arises, but the hon. Member may take my answer as representing the general view of the Government to this problem.

SPAIN.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether Spain has fully met, up to date, her financial obligations as a member of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: Spain is in arrear with the payment of part of her contribution to the League in respect of the year 1937.

Mr. Davidson: Is it because of those arrears that the Spanish Government have received so little support from the British Government?

Mr. Mander: Are we not in arrears in carrying out our obligations?

DANZIG.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister what action His Majesty's Government propose to sustain the authority of the League of Nations over the Free City of Danzig?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are represented on the Committee of Three charged by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of following the situation in Danzig. The representative of the United Kingdom will continue to play his full part as a member of this Committee, and as rapporteur to the Council for questions relating to Danzig.

Mr. Mander: Has not Danzig in practice been completely handed over to the Nazis?

GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government propose to resume conversations with the German Government; and, if so, when and on what basis?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister when His Majesty's Government intend to re-open conversations with the German Government?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I have at present no statement to make on this subject.

MEXICAN OILFIELDS (BRITISH INTERESTS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a further statement with regard to British interests in the Mexican oilfields?

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the present position with regard to the expropriation of British oil interests in Mexico?

Mr. Butler: Acting on instructions, His Majesty's Minister at Mexico City presented a note to the Mexican Government on 8th April stating that His Majesty's Government regarded the expropriation of the properties of the Mexican Eagle Company as inherently unjustified and must formally request their restoration to the company. I will circulate the text of this note in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Robinson: Can the hon. Member say when he expects to receive a reply?

Mr. Butler: I understand that a reply came in just before I answered this question, and that it is now being deciphered.

Mr. Davidson: Will His Majesty's Government follow strictly a policy of non-interference in this matter?

Mr. Paling: May I ask whether as British financial interests are concerned the Prime Minister has no longer any interest in a policy of non-intervention?

Following is the text of the note:

NOTE PRESENTED BY His MAJESTY'S MINISTER TO THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT ON 8TH APRIL, 1938.

In a note of March 21st addressed to His Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs Senor Don Edouardo Hay, His Britannic Majesty's Minister had the honour to inform the Mexican Government that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom expressly reserved their full rights in the matter of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal brought by the Compania Mexicana de Petroleo el Aguila S.A. (Mexican Eagle Oil Company) et al as also in the matter of the expropriation decree of March 18th last. His Majesty's Government have refrained from making a more immediate protest than they now do herein against this treatment of the Mexican Eagle Oil Company, in which British investors are very largely interested, in the hope that the Mexican Government would themselves recognise that the treatment had been unjust and would take steps on their own initiative to remedy the situation which has arisen in the only way in which it could in their view he remedied; namely by the return of its expropriated properties to the Company, which would, as always, be ready to deal reasonably and liberally with their employees. Three weeks have elapsed since the expropriation decree was issued without affording any grounds for thinking that these hopes will be fulfilled. While their final conclusions on the legal aspects of the situation still await fuller examination of the relevant documents, they are already impressed by the following points and have accordingly felt constrained to instruct His Majesty's Minister to make to the Mexican Government the following communication:

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not question the general right of a government to expropriate in the public interest and on payment of adequate compensation; but this principle does not serve to justify expropriations essentially arbitrary in character. In the present case expropriation was the culminating point in a series of events and the question of its validity cannot be separated from these. As a result of a preliminary review of these events and of the situation which has arisen, and without prejudice to such further considerations as they may later put forward, His Majesty's Government therefore desire to draw the serious attention of the Mexican Government to the points which follow.

The Mexican Eagle Company were, as a result of various proceedings in law, confronted with an award rendered by the Labour Board and confirmed by the Supreme Court, which was not in the view of His Majesty's Government, justified on facts. For example, the Supreme Court in its decision ignored the fact that essential evidence had been improperly excluded, inadequately considered or unjustifiably overriden by experts and the Labour Board: which evidence was directed to show that the figures of profits and costs of the Company subsequently adopted by the experts and the Labour Board were erroneous.

Passing from the award and its confirmation by the Supreme Court to the decree of

expropriation, His Majesty's Government find that one injustice becomes the basis for others. His Majesty's Government are fully satisfied that the conditions following from the non-compliance with the award were not such as have warranted the adoption of such a drastic and far-reaching measure as expropriation. The severity of this harsh and arbitrary step was out of all proportion to the exigencies of the situation which it was allegedly designed to meet, and went far beyond what was necessary if the real object which the Mexican Government had had before them was merely to secure the execution of the award and what in their view would be fair treatment for the wage earners.

Article 1 of the decree of 18th March states that the Company's assets were being expropriated "on grounds of public interests (utilidad publica)." And the preamble to decree recites circumstarces which allegedly sufficed to justify an act of expropriation on grounds of public interest. His Majesty's Government, however, have looked in vain for any explicit and adequate statement of such public interest as would be served by nothing less than expropriation; nor do they think it could have been demonstrated that any such public interest existed.

In the face of considerations such as those set forth above which His Majesty's Government must reserve the right in due course to restate and to add to, they find difficulty in escaping the conclusions that the real motive for expropriation was a political desire to acquire for Mexico in permanence the advantages of the ownership and control of the oilfields: that expropriation was tantamount to confiscation carried nut under a veil of legality formed by basing it upon labour issues; and that the consequences have been a denial of justice and a transgression by the Mexican Government of the principles of international law.

His Majesty's Government see no way in which this situation can be remedied but by the restoration of its properties to the Company itself. This His Majesty's Minister is instructed hereby formally to request.

GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister what treaty undertakings exist between this country and Portugal; which is the instrument governing them; and whether the commitments involving, in certain circumstances, the use of our arms for purposes other than our own defence extend to Portuguese possessions overseas?

Mr. Butler: The undertakings are contained in a number of treaties, a list of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Member will see that some of the instruments in question refer specifically to the Portuguese possessions overseas.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the Prime Minister whether this is one of the obligations for which this country may use its arms, and whether, as these treaties date back to 1373, this is not an appropriate moment to have them brought up to date?

Mr. Butler: These treaties were confirmed as a whole in 1899, and the preamble to the treaty with Portugal, 1901, known as the Treaty of Windsor, referred to the alliance between the two countries, and thus recognised the validity of the old treaties.

Mr. Mander: Are we going to war with Portugal?

Following is the information:

The undertakings are contained in treaties concluded respectively in the years 1373, 1386, 1642, 1654, 1660, 1661 and 1703, which have further been reaffirmed by Article 3 of the Treaty of 22nd January, 1815, the Declaration of 14th October, 1899, and the Arbitration Agreements of 16th November, 1904, and 16th November, 1914.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether any claims for compensation for damage to British property in Shanghai other than those already reported to the House have been presented to the Japanese Government and, if not, when it is proposed to present them; and whether he will take steps to do so without further delay, in view of the fact that the war has moved away from Shanghai and of the serious suffering inflicted on innocent British subjects?

Mr. Butler: I have at present under review the whole question of the procedure to be followed in regard to the claims which have been filed with His Majesty's Consular Officers in China. If it appears that immediate presentation is in the best interest of claimants themselves and is generally feasible, I shall certainly be willing to give instructions for this procedure to be adopted.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: When the hon. Member is considering this matter will he pay particular attention to the claim for damages done to British property in view of the occupation of the northern

and eastern parts of the country as a base for military occupation?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly consider all relevant facts.

ABYSSINIA.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether he will issue a White Paper containing full information concerning military and economic conditions in Ethiopia since the abandonment of sanctions against Italy in June-July, 1936, including reports received from the Governments of the Sudan, Kenya, and British Somaliland, and from His Majesty's consular and other representatives in Abyssinia and French Somaliland?

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he has received reports upon the conditions now obtaining on the Abyssinian-Sudanese boundaries; whether he will inquire as to the extent of unrest on the Abyssinian side; and whether he will publish reports at an early date?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that recent reports from Ethiopia indicate that Dankali country and Aussa and Gojjam provinces are completely free of Italians; that in Wollega province and in Begemder territory there are only two or three Italian garrisons, and in Tigre garrisons in only five towns; and whether in view of these conditions, as the military occupation of Ethiopia by Italy is not complete, he will reconsider his decision to raise the question of the recognition of the Italian conquest before the Council of the League?

Mr. Butler: Information about the situation in Abyssinia has from time to time been communicated to the House since 1936 in answers to questions, and I made a statement containing our latest information, including the position on the frontiers, last Monday. In the light of these communications His Majesty's Government are not prepared to issue a White Paper or to reconsider their decision to raise the question of the Italian occupation of Abyssinia before the Council of the League of Nations.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the Italian negotiations, is it not essential that the House should have the fullest possible


information as to the actual position in Abyssinia? Is it not the case that the information hitherto afforded has been meagre in the extreme?

Mr. V. Adams: Arising out of Question 21, have we not patrols on the border, and have they not sent us information?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Monday last. He will see that the status quo on the frontier has been maintained.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Have not the people of this country the right to know from the Government the real truth about the situation in Abyssinia before the Government commit the nation to a recognition of the Italian conquest of Abyssinia?

Mr. Butler: That is why so many answers have been given to so many questions on this subject.

Mr. W. Roberts: Is it not a fact that the resistance in Abyssinia at the moment is very much greater than at any time before?

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the proposed recognition of the Italian conquest of Ethiopia, consequent upon Italy's unprovoked aggression, cannot be reconciled with Article X of the Covenant of the League nor with the terms of the Briand-Kellogg Pact of Paris; and what action he proposes in the matter?

Mr. Butler: I do not accept the position as stated in the first part of the question. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Adams: May I ask why His Majesty's Government agreed to a resolution against the recognition of the Japanese conquest of Manchuria? Is not the principle precisely the same?

Mr. Benn: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the conquest of Abyssinia is not a breach of the Covenant?

Mr. Butler: I said no such thing, but what I said was that I did not accept the position as stated in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: rose——

Mr. Speaker: This is an abuse of supplementary questions.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, may I give notice that I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that, in the course of the present negotiations, no proposals have been or will be discussed involving permission to the Italian Government or Italian financiers to obtain loans or credits from financial houses in Great Britain for the financing of military or economic developments in Abyssinia?

Mr. Butler: As stated by my right hon. Friend yesterday in reply to the Leader of the Opposition no statement can be made at present concerning the subjects of the Anglo-Italian conversations.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that a substantial area on the southern part of Abyssinia comes within the Conventional Basin, he is able to give an assurance that nothing in the proposed Anglo-Italian agreement will be done which would in any way prejudice the rights and privileges of all nations in this region; and whether he can state that an assurance will be obtained that the special sections of the Convention of St. Germain, which make the welfare of the inhabitants the first consideration of the administration, will be preserved?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend, but pending the conclusion and publication of the proposed Anglo-Italian agreement I am not prepared to anticipate the provisions of that agreement.

Mr. Boothby: When does my hon. Friend expect the agreement to be published?

Mr. Butler: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to previous replies given by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Benn: Will it be made clear to the Italian Government that nothing conclusive can be agreed on until the House has given its assent?

Mr. Butler: I have already said that any agreement to be made will have to be considered by the House.

Mr. Benn: That is not my question. Will the Italian Government be told that


no agreement will be conclusive until this House has consented to it?

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether any communication has been received from the Secretary-General of the League of Nations with reference to the request of His Majesty's Government that the consequences arising out of the existing situation in Ethiopia shall be placed on the agenda of the Council of the League of Nations for its session next month; if so whether he will publish the text of this communication and whether he will give an undertaking that the Government will act in conformity with resolutions passed by the Assembly on 11th March, 1932, and 24th February, 1933, relating to the non-recognition of conquests effected in violation of the League Covenant?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is that the Secretary-General has addressed no communication to His Majesty's Government on this subject. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have in no way changed their view of the importance of the principles enunciated in the Assembly Resolutions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but in their application to any case His Majesty's Government must be entitled to take into account the attitude of other Members of the League and the facts of the international situation.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the danger to the peace of Europe that would result from any settlement in Czechoslovakia which did not implement to the full the rights of the German, Slovak, Hungarian and Polish minorities in accordance with the Peace Treaty and the Benes Memorandum of 1919, an assurance can be given to this House that His Majesty's Government will not be a party, directly or indirectly, to any initiative the object of which is to secure their support for a settlement not fully implementing the provisions of those instruments?

Mr. Butler: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement which the Prime Minister made in the House on 24th

March to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. V. Adams: Is the Minister aware that the treatment of minorities by the Czechoslovak Government has been exemplary, and that the present Czechoslovak Government intends to go to the limit of reasonable concessions in this matter, and that if there is a refusal of those concessions, that refusal can only be dictated by Berlin?

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not a fact that every other country treats its minorities better than does Germany?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. Mathers: On a point of Order. With regard to the answering of Foreign Office questions to-day, are we to understand that none of the questions was important in view of the fact that the Prime Minister answered none of them?

The Prime Minister: I did answer one. The hon. Member could not have been here.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MOTOR TORPEDO BOAT CONTRACTS.

Mr. Ammon: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement as to the result of his inquiry into the Power Boat Company's contracts?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): Yes, Sir. The statement I have prepared is rather lengthy, and I will, with your permission, read it at the end of Questions.

Later——

Mr. Cooper: The following is the result of the full and detailed inquiry, which, as promised by the Civil Lord in the Navy Estimates Debate on 17th March, has been made into the allegations made on that occasion by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) regarding motor torpedo boats supplied to the Admiralty by the British Power Boat Company.
It should at the outset be made clear that a considerable difference exists between the coastal motor boats used during the War and the new motor torpedo boats. The latter are designed,


as the former never were, to be comparatively independent of shore bases. In other words, two of their prime necessities are good sea-keeping qualities and habitability.
It was in October, 1934, that Mr. Scott-Paine, whose record with high-speed boats was well known, approached the Admiralty with his plan for a new type of boat, namely a 60-foot boat with 500 horse power "Power-Napier" marine engines, the speed of which was given as between 30 and 35 knots. A 72-foot boat was not proposed by the British Power Boat Company nor was it ever claimed that the boats they offered to supply would be capable of a speed of 42 knots.
The Admiralty thereafter approved the purchase of two experimental boats, and the order had actually been given when the emergency connected with the Italo-Ethiopian hostilities arose, and owing to that emergency the order for two boats was increased in the autumn of 1935 to six, all of which were to be capable of higher speed.
It would not be in the public interest to state the war function assigned to such vessels, nor to give figures for speeds and their corresponding endurances under varying conditions. No such information has been given by other Naval Powers possessing boats of this nature. The figures quoted in the House were in many respects inaccurate. These boats were constructed experimentally, in accordance with the desire of the naval staff. Since the despatch of the First Flotilla to the Mediterranean, requests for an increased number of such boats have been received from stations abroad, including a request from the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, containing, naturally, proposals to improve some of their present characteristics.
The reports that have been received of the behaviour of the boats of the First Flotilla, both in home waters, on the long passage which they made under their own power from Plymouth to Malta, and during service on the Meditarranean Station, speak highly for their sea-keeping qualities, which are remarkable for boats of their size. There have been no complaints as to engine-room ventilation. There has been no report of structural deficiency and there is no more tendency to "hog" in these craft than is found

in other seagoing vessels, and certainly no signs of a permanent "hog" or "sag." Their structure was fully tested before acceptance; the trials including manoeuvring, rough weather and sea-keeping tests.
The allegation has been made that the Flotilla, when exercising in the Mediterranean, failed to carry out orders through running out of petrol. It is alleged that they were ordered to proceed at 30 knots to a rendezvous 200 miles distant. No such order was incorporated in the orders for the exercise. They were ordered to locate and intercept a part of the Fleet. As easily may happen in such exercises, they failed, with one exception, to make contact, and returned to port. One vessel did make contact and delivered an attack 200 miles from the point of departure. It is incorrect to say that they cannot do 200 miles at 30 knots. Their actual endurance at this speed is, in fact, considerably higher.
Criticism has been directed to the fact that the boats are armed with 18 inch torpedoes rather than with 21 inch. For use in this type of boat, torpedo supply considerations made the 18 inch weapon a necessity at the time of the first order, but it was decided then that the eventual torpedo armament should be of 21 inch diameter. Experiments are being made with Admiralty torpedo tubes and discharge gear for these larger torpedoes, and are approaching finality with what appear to be satisfactory results. The statement that the firing gear in these boats has been unsatisfactory is not in accordance with the facts.
It has been alleged that the Admiralty have given a virtual monoply to the British Power Boat Company, to the exclusion of old-established firms who might have submitted competitive tenders. For a new vessel in the experimental stage, the ordinary arrangements for contract after comparison of tenders are never appropriate. This applies not only to the British Power Boat Company's boats but to the boat which was purchased from Messrs. Vosper in October, 1937. The requirement which the British Power Boat Company's boat was the first to meet was for a boat that should be independent of daily return to a shore base, having therefore the necessary habitability and sea-keeping qualities. None of the firms of whom mention was made in the De-


bate, other than the British Power Boat Company, had at the material dates a design of boat of the requisite size which offered the characteristics required by the Admiralty. Certain experimental work in that direction has since been carried out by some of them, and the Admiralty have just taken delivery of such a boat built by Messrs. Vosper, the purchase of which was referred to above. Messrs. White also have a boat of their own design with somewhat different characteristics under trial for the Admiralty.
The question was raised whether the Admiralty costings branch had investigated the price of £23,000 quoted in Navy Estimates of 1937 as paid for each of the boats of the 1936 programme. The 1937 Estimates showed a total estimated cost for six boats of the 1936 programme, but for three of these, which are being tried out for special purposes, prices have not yet been finally fixed. The other three boats will be paid for on the basis of the agreed prices of the first six boats, namely those of the 1935 programme. These prices as agreed were considered fair and reasonable by the Admiralty. In forming this opinion, the Admiralty had before them information regarding the price paid by the Air Ministry for somewhat similar hulls after competitive tender. The prices of engines for 1935 and 1936 programmes were also agreed, on the basis of what was considered by the Admiralty to be fair and reasonable. The engines for 1937 programme, which contained only slight improvements on those for boats of the two earlier programmes, were, however, the subject of technical cost investigation and the price worked out at £87 10s. per engine above the price previously paid. This supports the conclusion that the amounts paid for 1935 and 1936 engines were reasonable. Torpedo discharge gear and various extras to the contract were technically costed by the Admiralty. It may be added that the actual price for the boats, for which the estimate of £23,000 was given in Navy Estimates, 1937, was slightly lower than this figure.
It is necessary to deal with certain statements that have been made with reference to the suitability of the Napier Sea Lion Engine with which the boats are fitted. This engine is a type arrived at by the modification for marine use of

the latest pattern of the Napier Lion aero-engine. The modification consists in the main of incorporating cylinders of more robust design, of redesigning crankshafts and connecting rods, as well as introducing the installation items necessary for marine use.
It is alleged that these engines have been bought for from £5 to £10, and yet Mr. Scott-Paine has been charging £3,800 for them. There is no truth whatever in the allegation.
The Admiralty are naturally concerned only with the engines put into the boats supplied to the Royal Navy and not with the condition of any engines bought by the British Power Boat Company for experimental or other purposes of their own, or with the price paid for such engines. It has, however, been ascertained from the Air Ministry on inquiry, that the British Power Boat Company did purchase from them some used Napier Lion aero engines at about the price mentioned. These engines were, of course, not among those installed in the motor torpedo boats taken over by the Navy.
All the engines supplied to the Admiralty were new ones based on the 1934 type. They were of the modified aero-engine type described above, and were built under Government inspection. The cost of these new engines has already been shown to be fair and reasonable and was much below the £3,800 alleged. Any allegation that second-hand engines or engines from unused Air Ministry stock, were put into the boats as supplied to the Navy is untrue. This false impression may possibly have arisen from the fact that, in order to expedite matters, the first boat carried out its initial trials with partially converted aero-engines, or else from the fact that some such engines were used in the workshops of the British Power Boat Company for the training of naval personnel on this type of engine.
It should be clearly understood that as soon as new engines of the completely modified type were available, the partially converted aero-engines referred to above were removed from the experimental boat and replaced by the new.
The suggestion that engines with reground cylinders were initially installed in Admiralty boats is not true. The fact is that three engines which were taken


out of boats some time after acceptance were returned to Messrs. Napier for overhaul because water had got into the cylinders. It was in the course of this overhaul that regrinding was carried out.
As was to be expected with machinery of a new and experimental type, a certain number of difficulties were encountered in the early stages.
In normal circumstances, these would have been discovered by running trials over a long period in a prototype boat, and any necessary remedial measures taken. Time did not admit of this course being adopted. These boats were required at once, and there was no other suitable British-made engine available.
The main troubles experienced were those resulting from torsional oscillations at certain speeds and through failures of certain of the installation items.
With the object of reducing the effects produced by the torsional oscillations referred to, experiments have been carried out with dampers, and the results obtained so far are satisfactory.
The recurrence of the other defects is similarly being prevented by improvements in design.
With regard to the allegation that the engines were grossly over-revved and specially tuned to obtain their maximum speed, the continuous rating of the Napier Sea Lion is 1,800 revolutions per minute as for the aero engines, but engines of this kind are not expected to run continuously at the maximum power of which they are capable. The normal maximum revolutions at which these engines can run for short periods of time is 2,500, but engines were run satisfactorily at 2,600 revolutions per minute during some of the measured-mile runs.
The engines were, of course, tuned, this being the normal procedure with engines of this type when it is desired to ascertain the best performance of which they are capable.
Brief reference must be made to the statement that an alleged incident at the works of another firm was reported to the Admiralty by the police and that the person concerned was interviewed at the Admiralty. Full inquiry has been made, both in the Admiralty and from Portsmouth. There is no trace of any communication having been made to the Admiralty or to the local Naval authori-

ties, either by the police or by the firm in question.
It has been asked why the latest order, placed near the end of the financial year 1937, could not have been divided amongst several firms. It is clear from what has been stated above that, apart from the desirability of having flotillas homogeneously constituted, no other boat has as yet passed out of the experimental stage. While it is only fair that the original designer of this type of boat should have received initial orders proportionate to his enterprise and to the success of the design, it can be categorically stated that it is the intention of the Admiralty to invite competitive tenders for motor torpedo boats the moment they feel they are in a position to do so. The Admiralty have followed their general practice, and have throughout maintained the position that the British Power Boat Company could not be allowed to consider themselves immune from competition. At the same time, this opportunity must be taken of stating that the Admiralty, which must be largely dependent on the initiative, resource and inventive capacity of private firms, are highly appreciative of these qualities as displayed by the British Power Boat Company; and are gratified that a new company which can supply essential Service requirements has thus been started in this country.
In conclusion, I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton for having brought to the notice of the House rumours which were both prevalent and mischievous, and for having given me this opportunity of stating the facts.

Mr. Alexander: We are obliged to the First Lord of the Admiralty for the statement which he has made, and particularly for the acknowledgment he makes to the public service rendered by my hon. and gallant Friend in the statements he brought to the notice of the House. But may I ask the First Lord whether, in view of the necessarily lengthy and technical nature of the statement he has made, he will recognise that the Opposition require some time to compare paragraph by paragraph with the considerable volume of information which has also been supplied to us, and that, therefore, it must not be taken to-day that we withdraw from the representations we have made for a judicial inquiry, and that it might still be


necessary to press for the legal type of inquiry originally asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneation (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher)?

Mr. A. Bevan: In view of the fact that a judicial inquiry has not been made, does not the statement read by the First Lord merely amount to the fact that the Admiralty and Mr. Scott Paine have made an investigation into the conduct of the Admiralty and Mr. Scott Paine?

Mr. Cooper: It is nothing of the kind. I have myself gone very closely, with my colleagues, into all the facts of the matter and have made full inqury, and I am satisfied that the statement I have made to-day is accurate in all respects. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), I fully appreciate the position he takes up. It would not be fair to expect him to make a statement as to his future attitude at a moment's notice. I think the position he has taken up is perfectly reasonable, and the House will understand it.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether, in compiling the statement which he has read to the House, the First Lord had any independent evidence laid before him or only evidence from Mr. Scott Paine and Admiralty officials, and Admiralty papers on which either approval has already been given or action taken? Has he had any independent evidence?

Mr. Cooper: I made every effort to find out the true facts of the matter from every source available to me.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I press my question? Has the First Lord actually had any independent evidence laid before him in the course of compiling this statement?

Mr. Cooper: Certainly I have. I do not consider that members of the staff at the Admiralty are anything but independent. I have also consulted officers serving in the Fleet who have had firsthand experience of these boats.

CAPITAL SHIPS (RECONSTRUCTION).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many and which capital ships are at present under reconstruction; how many and

which are undergoing refits; by what dates is it anticipated the ships under reconstruction will be completed; and at what notice the ships undergoing refits can be ready for sea?

Mr. Cooper: As regards the first and third parts of his question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to his question on this subject on 22nd December last. The names of the ships concerned are "Renown," "Queen Elizabeth" and "Valiant." In addition, two capital ships, "Barham" and "Resolution," are now undergoing refit. They remain at short notice for sea while refitting.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: As it is clear from the First Lord's answer that no less than one-third of the capital Fleet is out of commission at the present moment, can the date for reconstruction of the three ships in question be expedited?

Mr. Cooper: Everything possible is being done to expedite the completion of the reconstruction of these ships.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: When will that reconstruction be effected in each case?

Mr. Cooper: I do not think it is desirable to give a date.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the hardship and consequent discontent arising out of the lack of provision of allowances to naval ratings under 25 years of age who are married or have dependent relatives; and whether he will give this question his sympathetic consideration?

Mr. Cooper: As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on 8th December last, the special difficulties of men serving in the Navy who have married under the qualifying age for marriage allowance, 25, have always been realised. The Admiralty have arranged that cases of real distress will be assisted by the Admiralty family welfare sections at the home ports, if necessary with the help of the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust.

Mr. Mathers: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman as head of the senior service


make an advance upon that position, which is causing great hardship in many cases? Surely in these times of trying to improve service conditions, something better could be done?

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Member is aware that this is a question which concerns all the services, and it would not be possible for one service to act separately.

Mr. Mathers: That is why I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that he is the head of the senior service.

Mr. Robert Gibson: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I must remind hon. Members that we have a large number of questions on the Paper.

ISLAND OF SYLT (NAVAL AIR BASE).

Mr. Alexander: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the conversion of the island of Sylt, on the west coast of Schleswig, into a fortified naval and air base, including provision of a naval harbour; and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. I have received a report to the effect that a fortified naval air base is being established on the island of Sylt.

Mr. Alexander: Were the Board of Admiralty aware of these developments at the time the Anglo-German Naval Treaty was signed; and have they considered the import of these developments?

Mr. Cooper: I could not, without notice, say how far these developments had gone at the time of the signature of the London Naval Treaty, but the Board of Admiralty have considered all the implications arising from them.

Mr. Alexander: May we take it that these developments have taken place without notice to the British Government?

Mr. Cooper: I would not like to commit myself to that, but I will make further inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

TERRORISM.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a statement to make as to the progress

of stamping out terrorism in Palestine and the situation there?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): There has been no material change in the situation since my last answer to a similar question by the hon. Member.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the troops in Palestine and the police organisation are amply to maintain order; and, if not, will he consider supplementing them?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The police continue to be supplemented. More men are being sent out, while improvements are continually being made in the organisation, and the military are very active.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many further assassinations have taken place?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Not without notice.

Mr. Adams: As the information given a week ago was of a non possumus character, can we have some details about the very serious situation and the endangerment of British and other lives in Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is very difficult to give a detailed answer to an oral question, but if the hon. Member puts clown an unstarred question, I will try to give him the particulars.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where the Arabs get all the money to carry on this propaganda?

Mr. Adams: On a point of Order. The information for which I ask has been given on previous occasions by Colonial Secretaries. Is there any reason why the practice of giving such information should be departed from in this case?

Mr. Speaker: . That is not a point of Order.

PARTITION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any plans for an amended scheme of partition are in his possession, whether drafted by the Palestine administration or other persons; and what is their nature?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have been informed of certain individual suggestions for modifying certain features of the plan for the partition of Palestine which is out-


lined in Part III of the report of the Royal Commission. Pending the report of the new Commission, the whole matter must be regarded as sub judice and it would not be appropriate, nor would it serve any useful purpose, to discuss any suggestions that have been made.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the so-called Wauchope Scheme or similar schemes are in any way accepted or binding?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have not heard of any Wauchope scheme; in fact, I am sure there is none in existence. A suggested scheme is the Malcolm scheme.

TEL AVIV.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the recent Royal Commission on Palestine recommended that the need of Tel Aviv for a substantial loan should be promptly and sympathetically reconsidered, he can state why it has been necessary to impose further delay on this matter?

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the average per capita municipal indebtedness of the city of Tel Aviv is approximately only 3os. as compared with over £30 in the case of many English towns; and whether, in these circumstances, he can give approval for the raising of a loan by Tel Aviv to carry out important public work?

Captain Strickland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that three years have now elapsed since the Government gave its consent in principle to a loan of £1,000,000 being granted to Tel Aviv in order to enable that city to carry out urgent schemes of sewerage, water supply, construction of hospitals and school buildings; and whether, in view of the urgent necessity for this work now being proceeded with, steps can now be taken to make the necessary arrangements?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add to the full reply which I gave on 16th March to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

Mr. Mender: How soon will it be possible to make a statement?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have said that inquiries are now proceeding in regard to the possibility of raising a loan for a smaller amount in order to meet the most immediate and pressing needs.

Mr. T. Williams: Seeing that this loan has been required for such a long time, and that there is grave danger of an epidemic at any moment in Tel Aviv, in the absence of any sewerage or drainage scheme, when will permission be granted for this loan?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not merely a case of permission being granted. Permission would gladly be granted if the loan could be raised.

Mr. Williams: Is it not the case that a large insurance company in this country expressed willingness to take up this proposal?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I answered that question some time ago, and I said then that negotiations had broken down.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, owing to the operations of private meat combines, the price of cattle for slaughter imported from Balkan countries is, approximately, three times higher in Tel Aviv than in Egypt; and why, in these circumstances, consent has been withheld by the Government for all remedies which the municipality of Tel Aviv has sought to introduce with a view to protecting the population of that town against profiteering?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir; I have no information regarding the matters referred to in this question and I have received no report from the High Commissioner on the subject. The matter is clearly one for consideration by the authorities in Palestine.

Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain whether or not the administration have prevented the council of Tel Aviv from safeguarding themselves?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will give me any information he may have at his disposal. If he does, I will make inquiries.

Captain Strickland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether


he is aware that of the projected Palestine loan of £2,000,000, some £440,000 has already been expended in anticipation mainly on works in Haifa, Jerusalem and Hebron; and for what reason no expenditure in connection therewith has been provided in the case of Tel Aviv?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am aware that a considerable sum has already been expended out of the surplus balances of Palestine in anticipation of the issue of a projected loan of £2,000,000. No provision for works in Tel Aviv was included in the schedule of the contemplated £2,000,000 loan, the reason being that other services of greater urgency had to take precedence.

Captain Strickland: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that a large municipality like Tel Aviv demands more careful attention than smaller municipalities, particularly in regard to sewerage?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me about the £2,000,000 loan which was arranged before the request came for the raising of the loan for Tel Aviv sewerage. I have already said that matter is being considered.

Captain Strickland: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need of immediate measures; and if the projected large loan cannot be negotiated, could not steps be taken to allocate part of that 2,000,000 for this purpose?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, because the £2,000,000, as I have said cannot be raised. The separate loan for Tel Aviv sewerage and drainage is now under consideration.

JEWISH IMMIGRANTS.

Captain Strickland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the parents of a Jewish resident in Palestine, who is in a position to assure their maintenance there, will be prohibited from entering the country as dependants after the quota of 200 for this category laid down for the current six months has been exhausted; and, if so, whether, in view of the situation of the Jews in Austria as well as elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe, the decision to limit this class of immigrants to 200 for six months can be reconsidered?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part,

while sympathising with the situation of Jews in Austria and elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe, I should not feel justified in reconsidering the decision which has recently been taken by His Majesty's Government with regard to the admission into Palestine of dependants of immigrants during the next six months.

DETENUS.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the places and conditions of detention of political persons arrested under the emergency regulations in Palestine; how they are lodged; their conditions of life; and whether, apart from the magistrates, anyone has power to inflict punishment on any person detained?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The great majority of these persons are detained in a concentration camp at Acre, and the remainder are detained in Acre Jail and a few in various police lock-ups throughout the country. At the Acre camp there is hutment accommodation of a satisfactory standard. No complaints have been received with regard to health and sanitary arrangements in the prisons and lock-ups. I have no special information as regards the point raised in the last part of the question, but I assume that prison officers have authority to deal with any breaches of discipline.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into these very grave charges in regard to the conditions, particularly in the prison, of people who have not yet been charged at all, but are merely under preventive detention; and will he also make representations that the warders in charge should have no authority to inflict punishment except by order of the district magistrate?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The vast majority of these people are detenus, people not charged, but suspected. They are in a special camp, and only a few are in the jail, which is the Acre Jail, a long-established jail. I am quite sure that the supervision and the conduct of warders in Palestine is very carefully watched.

BRITISH SOMALILAND.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to announce a decision as


the result of his inquiries into the judicial arrangements, including the question of the representation by counsel, in British Somaliland?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: After consultation with the Governor I have decided on a re-organisation of the judicial arrangements in the Protectorate. The legal secretary will become a member of the Protectorate Court when sitting either as a court of original jurisdiction or as a court hearing appeals from district magistrates. Advocates will be allowed to appear before the Protectorate Court in cases of murder and manslaughter. The reorganisation will be put into effect as soon as the necessary new arrangements can be made.

SIERRA LEONE (PLATINUM PROSPECTING LICENCES).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the particulars supplied by the Governor of Sierra Leone of the number of applications received and granted for prospecting licences in connection with platinum in that Colony?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The figures requested are not on record in the Colonial Office, but inquiry will be made of the Governor. According to the last published report, that is, for 1936, there were five licensees, who between them won 480 ounces of platinum in that year.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these licensees had exclusive rights?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I expect so. You could not give several licensees the right to go prospecting in the same stream.

Major Sir George Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the shortage of platinum blondes out there?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISH GUIANA (SUGAR EXPORTS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the exports of sugar, refined and unrefined, respectively, from British Guiana for the years 1936 and 1937, respectively; how much of the unrefined sugar was shipped

to Greenock; and what are the prospects of the current sugar crop in that Colony?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Exports of unrefined sugar from British Guiana in 1936 amounted to 176,503 tons, valued at £1,427,682, and in 1937 amounted to 181,569 tons, valued at £1,584,933. I have no record that there was any export of refined sugar. No information is available as to how much unrefined sugar was shipped from British Guiana to Greenock. As regards the last part of the question, I understand that, so far as can be judged at present, the prospects are good.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the situation has been affected by the recent heavy fall in the price of raw sugar?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, throughout all the sugar-producing Colonies. There has been a heavy fall in the world price of sugar, and they are all affected.

Mr. Gibson: In what way does the right hon. Gentleman mean?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There is not the money to raise the standards in the industry.

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).

Mr. Riley: asked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate total value of armaments material, including military aeroplanes, exported to foreign countries during the year 1937 and the countries to which such exports have gone?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I regret that it has not been possible to compile the desired information in respect of exports of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores in the time available, but I will circulate these particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible. As regards exports of military aeroplanes, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Watkins) on 5th April.

BLAST FURNACES.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of blast furnaces situated in the Midlands and the United Kingdom, respect-


tively, that have been blown 30th September, 1937?

Captain Wallace: I am informed that between 30th September, 1937, and the end of last month, there was a decrease of 14 in the number of blast furnaces in operation; of this number, 10 were situated in the Midlands.

Mr. Everard: Is it not the fact that the high cost of coal and the very cheap and large imports of foreign iron and steel are the cause of the closing down?

INDUSTRIAL COKE.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the President of the Board of Trade the average price of industrial coke during the month of March and comparative figures for the last eight years?

Captain Wallace: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The average price of Durham furnace coke, delivered Middlesbrough, as quoted in "The Colliery Guardian," during the month of March in the years 1930 to 1938 was as follows:—






Shillings per ton.



1930
…
…
…
20.00


1931
…
…
…
16.00


1932
…
…
…
16.35


1933
…
…
…
15.50


1934
…
…
…
20.10


1935
…
…
…
19.13


1936
…
…
…

23.13


1937
…
…
…
28.50


1938
…
…
…
36.00

MOTOR VEHICLES (IMPORTS).

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of motor cars and commercial vehicles imported during each of the last three months from Germany and the United States of America, respectively; and also give comparative figures for the first quarter for the last four years?

Captain Wallace: I regret that it has not been possible to compile the desired particulars in the time available, but I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

AUTOMATIC MACHINE TOOLS (IMPORTS).

Mr. Kelly: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of auto-

matic machine tools Entering this country duty free during 1937, and also the country of origin?

Captain Wallace: In 1937 licences under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932, were issued for the importation free of duty of 710 automatic machine tools, of which 422 came from the United States of America, 160 from Germany, 108 from Switzerland and 20 from Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Kelly: Why is it that while two makers in this country were putting their workers on short time or putting them off work altogether we went abroad for machine tools which can be made here?

Captain Wallace: The procedure under the Act is perfectly well known to the hon. Member. A certificate is not given if there are grounds for supposing that the tools can be produced in this country.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the Minister say whether, when machinery is being made for export, the tools which are necessary may be imported into this country free of duty?

Captain Wallace: I would prefer to see that question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he can now make a statement on his meeting with the representatives of the National Engineering Employers, the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Confederation of Engineering Unions, and outline the policy of the Government?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have had conferences with representatives of the employers and trade unions in the engineering industry, at which I informed them of the Government's desire to accelerate the completion of the Defence programme and asked for their co-operation. I made it clear that the methods to be adopted for accelerating engineering production are matters to be discussed by the industry itself. I emphasised in accordance with the statement of the Prime Minister on 24th March that it is not for the Government to try to dictate to the industry the detailed action which will be necessary. It is in accordance with our traditions that the great Indus-


tries themselves, through their joint machinery, should work out the details in the manner which is likely to be most effective. I understand that it has not yet been possible for the discussions to be commenced, but I am confident that the procedure which I have suggested will be seen by those concerned to be that best fitted for meeting the national requirements of the Defence programme with due regard to the interests of all those engaged in the industry.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that that while the unions realise their responsibilities, they have not forgotten how badly they were let down on the last occasion, and in view of that, will the Minister give an undertaking that, whatever takes place, the Government will see that the rights of the engineering workpeople are not affected by these negotiations?

Sir T. Inskip: I have already informed the representatives whom I have had the pleasure of meeting that any matter which they want the Government to consider will receive prompt and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that he will never get the co-operation of the workers of this country until we get a Government that is determined to pursue a policy of peace?

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the course of these discussions, any guarantee was asked for by the unions with regard to foreign policy?

Sir T. Inskip: No guarantee was asked for in connection with foreign policy or any other matter at those meetings. The meetings were preliminary to the discussions which we hope will take place between the two sides of the industry.

FALMOUTH COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. Joel: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is now in a position to state whether it is proposed to take any action to carry out the recommendations of the Falmouth Committee's Report?

Sir T. Inskip: The detailed examination by Departments into the recommendations of the Falmouth Committee is now near-

ing completion, and I anticipate that it will be possible for a statement to be made at an early date after the Easter Recess.

CALCIUM CARBIDE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in view of the rejection by the House of the Caledonian Power Bill, the Government will take into consideration the desirability of establishing plant for the production of calcium carbide in one of the Special Areas, preferably that in the coalfield of county Durham?

Mr. Walker: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in view of the rejection of the Caledonian Power Bill by the House of Commons, the Government will give consideration to the establishment of plants to produce calcium carbide by the coke-oven gas method, which plants can be easily established in any of the depressed coal and iron-producing areas, such as Lanarkshire, Durham and South Wales, thereby giving employment in these areas and stimulating and cheapening the cost of pig-iron production in this country?

Sir T. Inskip: As I understand the hon. Members, they have in mind the provision of Government factories for the production of calcium carbide. I do not think that such provision would be appropriate in this case, the direct Government requirements being very small. If, however, the hon. Members have in mind production by private enterprise, I know no reason why persons interested should not undertake such production, should they choose to do so.

Mr. Adams: Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to any suggestion that this proposed factory should be set up in County Durham?

Sir T. Inskip: If the hon. Member means a suggestion that it should be set up by private enterprise, I think I have answered that part of the question. I may add, however, that I should most wholeheartedly welcome any factory set up by private enterprise.

Mr. Bevan: Has any private concern intimated to the right hon. Gentleman its intention to produce the British requirement of carbide in this country?

Sir T. Inskip: The only concern which has indicated its intention to provide calcium carbide is the British Oxygen Company, which, in accordance with the undertaking it gave, is proceeding with the erection of a factory at Port Talbot. That factory will not be sufficient, having regard to the size of the unit which it is intended to erect, to provide the whole of the British requirement.

Mr. Bevan: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to impress upon the British Oxygen Co. the necessity of extending the plant at Port Talbot to produce the requirement of the Government? Is there any reason why they cannot produce it?

Mr. Boothby: Is there any reason why they should?

MERCANTILE MARINE (REPLACEMENTS AND EXPANSION).

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the need for an efficient Mercantile Marine in time of war, His Majesty's Government has considered offering special facilities to ship-owners to replace United Kingdom-owned cargo and passenger ships, which are over 25 years old, with modern vessels?

Captain Wallace: A scheme somewhat on the lines that my hon. Friend suggests IN as brought into operation by the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935. Under the "Scrap and Build Scheme," 50 new cargo vessels for the United Kingdom register were constructed involving the scrapping of 49 old British vessels and 48 old foreign vessels. The period during which the financial facilities were made available under the Act expired in February, 1937. As at present advised, my right hon. Friend does not think the reintroduction of a scheme of this nature necessary.

Mr. Storey: Does not the safety of the country demand greater cargo carrying tonnage than it at present possesses, and as shipbuilders are in need of orders, would it not be well to take steps to replace vessels which are over 25 years of age, of which there are a great number?

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any plans have been prepared for a rapid expansion

in the construction of cargo-carrying vessels and tankers in the event of war?

Captain Wallace: Plans for securing the maximum output of merchant shipping in the event of war have been under consideration, in close co-operation with the shipbuilding industry, for some time. Special attention is being given to the production of cargo-carrying vessels and tankers.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether his Department are watching an experiment for using gas-producer engines using solid fuel in ships?

Mr. Paling: Does this mean reopening some shipyards which have been closed?

Captain Wallace: Probably not; it might be better to work double shifts in the existing yards.

JAMAICA (SOCIAL CONDITIONS).

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the charges recently made by residents in Kingston, Jamaica, regarding unemployment and social conditions in the island; that thousands of children are roaming the country districts unable to go to school because of the lack of food and clothing; that recently hundreds of ragged men, women, and children marched to the prison in Kingston pleading for admission so as to get fed; and that a contemplated hunger march has been prohibited by the police and the organisers threatened with prosecution; and can he make a statement regarding these charges?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have received no information from Jamacia regarding the matters referred to, but I have asked the Governor by telegraph for a report. I will communicate with the hon. Member when the reply is received.

Mr. Riley: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the correspondence in last Saturday's "Manchester Guardian" in relation to this matter, with detailed charges of discontent; and in view of the fairly widespread social discontent in the West Indies recently, does he not think it advisable to have some wide survey by a commission and a report on the situation?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have already announced in the House that the new


Labour Adviser to the Colonial Office is going to make his first visit to the West Indies.

KENYA (ABYSSINIAN REFUGEES).

Mr. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish reports upon the situation along the Kenya-Abyssinian frontier, both as to the conditions along this frontier and as to the movement of refugees over the borders?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The situation on the Kenya-Abyssinian frontier is quiet, and the status quo is being maintained. Apart from a very few isolated individuals, no refugees have crossed the frontier since last summer. In these circumstances I do not see what reports could usefully be published.

Mr. Harvey: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any very recent report?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir, none.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the authorities in Northern Rhodesia are taking steps for the provision of proper housing and social conditions for the Africans working in the copper belt; whether, in view of the profits made from the copper mines and the serious dislocation of native life, any steps have been taken to create a native welfare fund and launch a programme of social and educational advance; and whether, in the new compounds being built, due consideration is given to planning, allowing for sanitation, trees, gardens, playing-fields, etc.?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the hon. Member is aware, Major Orde-Browne, whom I have recently appointed as my Labour Adviser, went out to Northern Rhodesia at the end of last year to study all the problems arising in the Territory in connection with the employment of native labour. Major Orde-Browne is still in Northern Rhodesia, and I should prefer to make no statement until his report has been received. Meanwhile I will bring the points raised by the hon. Member to the attention of the Acting Governor.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether labour is still recruited in that area for the Rand and does that affect the situation?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Oh, no. Labour is recruited some distance away. The copper belt in Northern Rhodesia is at the other end of the country from the Rand.

Mr. Gibson: Has not recruitment been made from that area also?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIRCRAFT SUPPLY (UNITED STATES AND CANADA).

Mr. Day: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster particulars and results of the inquiries made to the Government of the United States as to the possibility of the United States supplying military aircraft to the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make immediate inquiries of the Governments of the United States and Canada with a view to placing substantial contracts, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, for the construction of military aeroplanes both in the United States and Canada?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): Definite exploratory action is being taken in regard to the possibility of the supply of aircraft for the Royal Air Force both from the United States and from Canada.

Mr. Day: Will the Minister also make inquiries into the question of replacements?

AIR CADET CORPS.

Mr. Everard: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether steps have yet been taken to commence the formation of an air cadet corps; and how this corps will be organised locally?

Earl Winterton: As recently reported in the Press, a scheme for the formation of an air defence cadet corps has been approved. The organisation and administration of the corps will be in the hands of the Air League of the British Empire, but the Air Ministry is in full sympathy with the project and has undertaken to give the corps all practicable assistance. The aim of the organisers is, I am informed, to establish units of the corps in all larger towns and to provide instruction in the elements of aircraft maintenance and also in air-raid precaution duties.

Mr. Everard: Is it the intention of the Air Ministry to put this in hand at the earliest possible moment?

Earl Winterton: Yes, the matter is being put into operation.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is there any precedent for allowing the formation of such a corps by a private propaganda organisation?

Earl Winterton: There are many examples that could be given, but I do not admit that it is a private propaganda organisation. The Cadet Corps for the Army is an organisation of patriotic citizens.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister encourage the Communist party organising the Young Communists League?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS (DISCHARGED PLOTS).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any action is to be taken following on the meeting of dismissed Imperial Airways pilots with the Government directors of Imperial Airways?

Mr. Hulbert: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement in regard to the meeting between the Government directors of Imperial Airways, Limited, and a number of pilots recently dismissed by the company held on 6th April?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): As a result of representations made in this House, my Noble Friend instructed the Government directors to examine afresh cases of certain pilots discharged last autumn by Imperial Airways. This re-examination has been carried out. My Noble Friend has been made aware of the views of the Government directors; these views are being communicated to the board of the company, and I hope to give the House further information in due course.

Mr. Montague: Did Imperial Airways negotiate with all the 10 pilots who were discharged, nine of whom were members of the British Air Line Pilots' Association, or with only the three major pilots mentioned in the discussions in the House?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Invitations to interview the Government directors were issued to seven pilots, and five of them took advantage of it.

Lieut.-Colonel Fletcher: Will the further information that is promised be made available immediately after the Recess?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I should not like to give a particular date, but it is my Noble Friend's desire that the House should be made aware of it as quickly as possible.

ILLUMINATED WIND-STOCKING, CROYDON.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air since what date Le Bourget has had an illuminated wind-stocking; on what date it was first proposed to instal an illuminated wind-stocking at Croydon; on what date it was decided to supply such a stocking for Croydon; from what sources designs have been obtained; and if it is intended to use a design produced by a commercial firm or a design produced by a Government Department?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The reply to the first part of the question is, I understand, the beginning of 1936. As regards the remaining parts a proposal was made in April, 1936; it was decided in January, 1937, to supply such a stocking when a satisfactory type had been discovered; designs were obtained both from departmental and commercial sources; it has been decided to proceed with the design submitted by a commercial firm.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Do we understand from the answer that it has taken something like two years to decide upon the supply of this equipment?

Mr. Everard: Has there not been an illuminated wind-"T" at Croydon for many years past?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That is so, but this applies to a particular illuminated wind-stocking.

AERODROMES (SURVEY, ROYAL AIR FORCE).

Mr. Everard: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is considering making a survey of municipal and private aerodromes, so that an organised system of use of these aerodromes, with payment by the Government, may be put into operation?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: A survey is being undertaken with a view to ascertaining which additional municipal aerodromes can be utilised for Royal Air Force purposes. Due payment is already made in respect of those which are at present being used for such purposes, and will be made in respect of any additional aerodromes which may be so used.

Mr. Everard: Am I to understand that all the municipal and private aerodromes will now be considered by the Air Ministry to see whether proper advantage can be taken of them by the Royal Air Force?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, a comprehensive review is being undertaken.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS AND BRITISH AIRWAYS (CHAIRMEN).

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken by the boards of Imperial Airways, Limited, and British Airways, to secure the services of full-time chairmen as recommended by the Cadman Report?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 23rd March.

Mr. Robinson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when we may expect this important recommendation of the Cadman Committee to be carried out?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I cannot give an actual date, but I hope very shortly.

JUNCTION AERODROME SCHEME.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made with the provision of a junction air service as recommended by the Maybury Report?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The operation of the junction aerodrome scheme must necessarily await the setting up of the licensing authority recommended by the Maybury Committee.

Mr. Robinson: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is well over a year since the Maybury Committee reported and that England is still without a junction air service, and can he promise that there will be no further delay?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I hope that the Licensing Order will shortly be laid before the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRUNK ROADS.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Transport what steps have been taken by his Department to provide a uniform and adequate system of lighting on trunk roads; whether county councils have been approached as to meeting a proportion of the cost of installation and maintenance; and, if so, with what result?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): In reply to the first two parts of this question, I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular which I have recently addressed to local authorities on the matter; as regards the last part, the proposed arrangement only became operative on 1st April, and it is too early to state the result.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow all Members to have copies of that circular?

Mr. Burgin: I will try to make arrangements for that.

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can furnish an estimate of the proportion of the mileage of the trunk roads which is of such design and width that it is not safe for vehicles to be overtaken when there is traffic travelling in the opposite direction?

Mr. Burgin: Of the 4,500 miles of trunk roads, there are 750 miles with a width between fences of less than 30 feet. I am not able to say what proportion of this mileage falls within the description contained in my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Bevan: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to deal with this problem?

Mr. Burgin: Every possible step.

Mr. Bevan: Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more precise?

Mr. Burgin: Not in answer to a supplementary question.

Mr. Bevan: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make a statement of what he intends to do?

LONDON (WEST END CONGESTION).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consult with


the local authority with a view to scheduling for widening the east side of Derby Street, Mayfair, leading from Little Stanhope Street, so as to reduce congestion in those two streets which are now being increasingly used, with Down Street as a relief short-cut from Piccadilly to Audley Street, Bayswater, and Maryle-bone?

Mr. Burgin: I should prefer to defer consideration of this suggestion until experience has been gained of the effect of the through connection from Curzon Street to Park Lane now in course of construction.

Mr. Logan: Is this alteration to be made for the convenience of the hon. Member?

CHEAP RAILWAY TICKETS (COMPANIES' LIABILITY).

Mr. Cassells: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make in connection with his negotiations with railway companies as to Common Law liability in cheap daily travel tickets?

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport whether his conversations with the railway companies regarding their immunity from liability to holders of cheap tickets have now reached a satisfactory conclusion; and whether he will make a statement on the subject?

Mr. Burgin: The four main line railway companies have informed me that they will not in future seek to exempt themselves by special contract from their liability at Common Law in respect of injury, fatal or otherwise, to passengers (other than those holding privilege tickets or free passes) when travelling in the companies' trains or whilst in the act of entering, or alighting from, such trains. Where in the case of passengers holding workmen's tickets who may be injured in such circumstances the railway companies' liability at Common Law is limited by Special Act, the railway companies will not plead such limitation. The conditions of issue of cheap day, half-day and evening tickets and workmen's tickets will be amended accordingly in due course, and meanwhile I am happy to say that the companies have decided to apply these concessions to accidents which occurred on or after 1st December, 1937.

Mr. Cassells: Is it to be understood that this principle will likewise apply to all cheap excursion tickets?

Mr. Burgin: I would prefer that the answer should be taken exactly at its face value. If there is any further matter, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question down. The railway companies have very handsomely dealt with the point which was raised, and I do not want in an answer to a supplementary question to go beyond what I am quite sure of being able to implement.

EMPIRE EXHIBITION (RAILWAY FACILITIES).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport whether the railway companies are taking steps to provide additional facilities by way of special trains, and specially cheap fares, from industrial centres in Scotland and England to Glasgow while the Empire Exhibition is open?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. Certain announcements regarding additional railway facilities have already appeared in the Press, and I understand that a further announcement will be made shortly.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (COMMUNICATIONS).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Transport what steps have been taken by his Department in connection with air-raid precautions to safeguard communications?

Mr. Burgin: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as the Minister responsible for air-raid precautions, is in close touch with me and with representatives of authorities and undertakings concerned in regard to air-raid precautions to safeguard communications.

Mr. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to issue a statement on this matter?

Mr. Burgin: I would much rather get on with the work.

Mr. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that local authorities would like to get on with the work, but are unable to do so until statements are issued?

RIVER TYNE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the recommendations of 'both the majority and minority reports of the Royal Commission upon Tyneside local government, that it would be of great advantage to Tyneside if there was one authority only, namely, the Tyne Improvement Commission, in control of the River Tyne, the Government intend taking steps to secure this?

Mr. Burgin: The initiation of steps to implement this recommendation of the Royal Commission rests with the Tyne Improvement Commissioners, to whom it would fall to promote any necessary legislation by private Bill. I should be prepared, if so requested, to discuss the matter with representatives of the Commissioners and other interests concerned.

SCHOOL CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that local education authorities, having abolished homework for school children up to 12 years of age, allow the same children immediately after reaching that age to be employed for wages out of school hours in addition to the imposition of homework; and whether he will take steps to remove this anomaly and abolish all employment out of school hours?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Very many local education authorities are believed to be following the recommendations made in the Board's recent pamphlet that no homework should be set to children under 12 years of age. In the case of older children attending public elementary schools, my Noble Friend understands that, except in selective central schools where children are preparing for examinations and are not

employed out of school hours, there is little homework set and that is voluntary. As regards the latter part of the question the employment of school children is regulated by the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and my Noble Friend is advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that legislation would be required to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Member aware that this very objectionable practice of employing children out of school hours is on the increase in several parts of the country?

Mr. Lindsay: I am not aware of that.

Mr. Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman the information.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the clock; and that at Five of the clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister state what business it is proposed to take to-night in the event of the Eleven o'clock Rule being suspended?

The Prime Minister: We propose to take the remaining stages of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, and the two Scottish Bills which appear next on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 124.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I had set myself the task of giving considerable figures to show, in a constituency like my own, the vast character of the problems that are still before that community, and I had reached the point that, on the very latest figures which had been supplied to me by the town clerk of Coatbridge, the degree of overcrowding there at the present moment is, he calculates, 44 per cent. of the houses surveyed. If I may add what I have already said in regard to Airdrie to what I have now said in regard to Coatbridge, and thus cover my whole constituency, I find that altogether the number of families in the whole constituency that are at present living in overcrowded conditions is no less than 6,691. I would emphasise the very extensive character of the task before that community by mentioning that, of the one-roomed houses in Coatbridge alone, no fewer than 54 per cent. of those houses are overcrowded, while of the two-roomed houses no fewer than 51 per cent. are given in the survey as overcrowded. That leads me to a further aspect which will tend, I think, to accentuate what I have said.
I take, first, the town of Airlie. In that town there were in 1931 still 909 single-apartment houses — single-end houses, as we call them in Scotland. This single end is a tragic institution. I do not think there is anything more tragic that the small pamphlet published years ago containing a speech by Dr. Russell, Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow entitled "Life in One Room," in which he tells of the births and deaths and all the happenings taking place in that single room. There are 16.1 per cent. of one-roomed houses in Airdrie, and if you take the one-roomed and two-roomed houses—in Scotland that generally means a room and a kitchen— you will find that there are no fewer than 60.5 per cent. that have no further accommodation than that in the town of Airdrie. In Coat-bridge, 23 per cent. of all the houses are single-apartment houses, and if you take all the one and two-roomed houses, they constitute 73.9 per cent. of the total for Coatbridge. Altogether, of single-apartment houses, there are no fewer than 2,108 in Coat-bridge. But that is not all. I will examine these houses still further, and if hon. Members will consider what I am saying they will be a little surprised.
I mentioned that in Airdrie there were 909 single-roomed houses. Will it be believed that 312 of these were occupied by five or more persons all the year round? I am quoting now from the figures of the last census. It is fair to say there has been a considerable change for the better; but it is only a partial change, and it does not affect the nature of the problem that has still to be faced. Of these houses, 130 were occupied by five persons; 98 were occupied by six persons; 48 by seven persons; 18 by eight persons; 12 by nine persons and six by 10 persons—all these living in one-single end. At Coatbridge, there were 2,108 single-end houses, with one room serving all purposes, and of these, 812 were occupied by five or more persons. There were 319 occupied by five persons; 237 occupied by six persons; 133 by seven persons; 60 by eight persons; 44 by nine persons; 15 by 10 persons; three by 11 persons; and one by 12 persons. That is the situation that has to be faced.
What has this community done? It is very unpleasant for me to have to state that such conditions prevail, but it is fair to ask what they have done. I will take

Coatbridge as an illustration. Facing this question of overcrowding, they sought to allocate one- and two-roomed houses in such a way as to conform to the Acts, and find how many houses it would be necessary to build. They concluded that it would be necessary to build 2,743 houses. They calculate that in the three years from 1936 to 1938 they may, with good conditions, be able to build 1,384 houses; but when you take into account that there is not only the question of overcrowding to be faced, but that of the separation of families, and of bringing in of higher standards, you see how far they are from being able to meet that gigantic task before the date in the Bill. I will read a letter I have received from the Town Clerk of Coatbridge. He says:
At the end of 1937, 812 overcrowded families embracing 5,224 persons had been relieved and this number is growing as the town council's housing programme advances, but it will be readily understood that overcrowding is still very rife in Coatbridge, although it is diminishing slowly as a result of the local authority's housing operations.
I will put what they have done in another way. I will take the number of houses that were reported in these burghs at the last census. In Airdrie, there were reported to be 5,658 houses. Acting under the various Acts, the town of Airdrie has either completed, or is in course of completing, no fewer than 3,196 houses, which means that, taking the number of houses as they were determined by the last census, they have completed, or are completing, as new houses no less a proportion than 56.4 per cent. of the houses existing in the burgh at the time of the census. That is a noble record in such a district. Indeed, on one occasion the town of Airdrie stood highest of all the burghs in Scotland in respect of the percentage of new houses to population. At the time when they stood first, they had completed, or were in course of completing, 95 houses for each thousand of the population. Similar figures relating to Coatbridge were these: At the census there were 9,164 houses. You may take that as a kind of close approximation of the number of houses. They have built, or have in course of completion, no fewer than 3,740 houses. Coatbridge, like Airdrie, has stood very high indeed right through in the proportion of the new houses that they have built.
I want to pay this tribute to them, that surrounded by these adverse conditions


they have done so nobly. In one of the Debates not long ago on the Special Areas the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) said he would like to see these Special Areas beginning to do something for themselves. I want to bring this in as an answer to any accusation of that kind. It is a very noble thing, with such conditions and such a burden of poverty, that these towns have made such a noble attempt to meet their housing conditions. Yet, with it all, it is quite impossible, as I see it—and I only mention this for what it is worth—for such a district to be ready by the date in the Bill.
I wish to give one or two more general considerations. The date in the Bill should be one that would cover all cases. It should cover Scotland and Wales, as well as England. If it does not do that, it fails. In the Ridley Committee's statement on housing conditions in Scotland, it admits at once that the housing shortage is much more acute in Scotland than in England. Indeed, it says that there is about six times more overcrowding in Scotland than in England and Wales. It says also that overcrowding exists in all parts of Scotland, and, taking a figure of 10 per cent. of overcrowding, it proceeds to indicate the towns and the counties that are above or below that standard. It says that none of the cities or large burghs is down even to the 10 per cent. of overcrowding.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has spoken at some considerable length, but I am not sure how he connects that with the Amendment. It seems to me to be more suitable to a Debate on the Housing Bill.

Mr. Barr: I at once bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. My point was that the Ridley Committee says most distinctly that, in fixing the date you must take into consideration all the areas, and it expressly says that Scotland will not be satisfied with a date that might suit England and Wales, and therefore, it takes a different line. It was with that argument that I was dealing, but I do not pursue it. I thought it was a point, and I just mention it in the words of the great philosopher, Immanuel Kant:
Act so that you can universalise the law of your maximum "—
Which means, If your date is not suitable for Scotland, then it will have to be removed for the others. [Interruption.]

Yes, that is exactly what Kant meant. I might just say that the minority report of the Ridley Committee, which was signed by Councillor Brady, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), used these words:
Our examination of the proposal convinces us that any hard-and-fast fixation of the period of control is undesirable.
They go on to argue that they are not of opinion that we should deal with decontrol as though it were a thing that was necessarily desirable, but rather that a certain measure of control might still have to be exercised. There is one other consideration only of a general kind that I adduce, and I think it applies to England as well as to Scotland. House building has reached a certain crisis in respect of luxury building, labour and materials. So much so that in Scotland we have had two conferences on the subject, one on 30th September of last year, and the other on 25th March last. They were by no means confined to any one party. All Members of Parliament were invited, and representatives of county councils and other local authorities. The first of these was presided over by Sir lain Colquhoun of Luss, Bart., Convener of the County of Dumbarton, and the second by the Vice-Convener. They said that unless certain measures were taken, the building of houses for the working classes might be brought to a complete close in Scotland.
The conclusion that I draw from the figures that I have submitted is that the problem will still be there in vast proportions at the time of the date fixed in the Bill, and still calling for some measure of control. Behind it are the question of increase of rent, the raising of standards, and of general housing progress. I understand that, in any case, Parliament will come in, and that the Minister has given a promise of a committee of inquiry as to whether it should he the date in the Bill or another date. In the town of Jedburgh in Scotland there was a celebrated judgment given in the reign of James VI. Some summary executions were carried out. From that time it was known as exacting what was called "Jeddart justice," according to which a man was hanged first, and tried afterwards. The Minister, in putting in this determination


in the first Clause of the Bill and then appointing a committee of inquiry, is giving us a new form of Jeddart justice. Before he has even started his State trial, and before he has elected his jury, he raises the gallows in the first Clause, which I will call the first charge in his indictment, and fixes the date of the public execution, namely, 24th June, 1942. History has a strange way of repeating itself, and, long before 24th June, 1942, comes round, it will, I predict, be true of the right hon. Gentleman and his gallows:
So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I beg to second the Amendment.
On 2nd March, when the Bill was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said that decontrol should be effected as soon as there was an adequate supply of housing accommodation. The reason for this Amendment is that we do not believe that there will be adequate accommodation before 1942. Certain houses have to be decontrolled this year, and I think that I can demonstrate to this House and the country at large the fearful consequences to tenants. It will simply be a forerunner of what is likely to happen in 1942, when all houses are to be decontrolled. Why should the Government think that there will be an adequate supply of houses by that date? Have there not been repeated complaints in this House about the slowing down of house building?
What has been the answer from the Government Benches? At one time we were told that it was due to a shortage of materials, and at another time to an alleged shortage of labour. The Minister told us that houses to let were being built at the rate of 140,000 per annum, but at that rate half the number that are considered necessary will not have been built by June, 1942. We are concerned about houses to let and not with houses for sale. It is houses to let which are wanted when dealing with slum clearance and overcrowding. The poor people who have to be removed under slum clearance and overcrowding schemes cannot afford to buy houses that are built by private enterprise. At one time we heard a great deal about steel houses being built in order to meet the housing shortage, but

I imagine that all the steel that we can get will now be utilised for armaments, so that there will be no question of steel houses.

Mr. Quibell: They are to be wooden houses now.

Mr. Leslie: Now we are told that wooden houses will be erected. The housing shortage in the London area and in the Home Counties has been increased by the neglect of the Government to deal with the location of industry. Factories and workshops have been erected to an enormous extent, as well as cinemas and public houses on the housing estates, utilising building labour and increasing the cost of houses. That congestion has led to sub-letting. I could take hon. Members to rows of streets around the London area where nearly every house has been divided. I could take them to houses that were built 30 years ago for £250 and let for £32 a year, which to-day are being let at £76 per annum, apart from rates. What is the result? The people who rent these houses cannot afford to pay £76 a year, and the result is that they sub-let.
What applies in the London area and in the Home Counties applies equally in the Midlands. The other day an hon. Member of one of the Birmingham Divisions approached me and asked if I would agree to some allowance being made in respect of the Sunday Trading Act because of a considerable amount of congestion in certain of the Birmingham Divisions. He said that there were hundreds of houses without pantrys, and that therefore the small shop had become the pantry for these houses. Yesterday we heard a story from Birmingham, and it is very important that Birmingham should have been selected. I should have thought that in the city from which the Prime Minister comes there would have been a considerable amount of house-building, and that there would have have been no shortage. We were told yesterday by a Birmingham representative that they were
continuing to build between 2,000 and 3,000 houses a year, yet it is stated by the officials that it will be at least five or six years before we shall have met the needs of the present time in any way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1938; col. 1033, Vol. 334.]


Birmingham wants five or six years, but this Bill allows them only four years. Where houses have been decontrolled, rents have doubled, and consequently tenants are forced to sub-let, and thus we have overcrowding and a lack of proper sanitary arrangements. Overcrowding exists to an extent never dreamed of by hon. Members. If the Minister, instead of bolstering up housing associations, had acted more generously towards municipal authorities, much greater progress would have been made in dealing with the housing problem. The Minister may be very optimistic as to what will happen during the next four years, but certainly signs point to a decided shortage for many years, and some who profess to know say that it will be so for at least 10 years. According to the Bill we are to get only four years, and it will be a calamity to thousands of poor people if all houses are decontrolled by 1942. I, therefore, urge the acceptance of this Amendment.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. James Hall: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Health to the very parlous state of many families to-day because of the difficulty of finding houses in which they can live under decent conditions. If control should end within three or four years, large numbers of families in this country will be left at the mercy of any rent profiteer who likes to come along at the end of that period. In Stepney we have a neighbourhood that was built up many years ago, and to-day it has reached a state where the demolition of the whole of the district is essential. If the Government say that, at the end of four years, decontrol shall end, it will mean that very high rents will be charged for places that are dilapidated and hardly fit for habitation. The difficulty is that building operations must be very high because of the very high price of land, and private enterprise cannot do anything to assist in overcoming the housing shortage. The housing of the people in that part of London must be undertaken both by the local council and by the London County Council because private enterprise would find it quite uneconomic to attempt to build in that district. Therefore, four years can make very little impression at all upon the very difficult state in which the people are

living. Because of these conditions overcrowding is rife.
The Mover of the Amendment gave a very moving picture of the difficulties under which working-class people live in Scotland. It would be quite easy for me to give pictures of a similar character of the life of the people in London, but I do not want to harrow the feelings of the House. Some time ago my attention was called to two families who had been washed out of their rooms. The two families were each living in one room in the topmost part of a house. There were 12 people in one family and eight people in the other family. Because of its defective state, the roof had to be removed and had been replaced by tarpaulin which, however, was so badly placed that when a storm came on in the night the two families were literally washed out of their rooms. The landlord took those 20 human souls and put them into a cellar which had been closed for two years. Had the landlord possessed pigs he would not have put them in that cellar, because pigs are worth money. Only yesterday afternoon I went to see a family of nine people who were living in one room. The conditions are such that the husband and father has to go out to sleep somewhere else so as to provide a little more room for the other members of the family. We have always been told that British character is based on the national life of the people—the family life. How we are to develop family life under these conditions I do not know.
An alarming feature of the situation is that, in spite of all that is being done through out medical services, tuberculosis is increasing in that part of London, and increasing, in my opinion, because of the conditions under which the people have to live. It may be said that the people ought to find an opportunity of expanding, going out of the district and living elsewhere. There are difficulties against that suggestion. The majority of the people who live in that district get their livelihood at the docks as casual workers, and in order to earn their living they have to attend the call-on place at 7.30 in the morning and 1.15 in the afternoon. It is extremely difficult for men who rely entirely upon casual employment to be able to live miles from the place where they work. Moreover, the extreme


poverty under which the people live makes it impossible for them to afford to live any distance away, necessitating railway fares or other cost of transit. In view of these facts, we cannot regard the likelihood of early decontrol as calculated to do other than create acute hardships for working-class people.
Despite all that may be said from the other side of the House, the fact remains that where decontrol takes place rents immediately rise considerably. I have listened to some of the figures that have been stated officially and, not knowing how they are compiled or the source from which the figures are obtained, I cannot reconcile them with my knowledge of the sky-rocketing of rents that takes place when houses become decontrolled. Living where I do, I know that just before the War there was a new experiment in housing, and for the first time flats were built in that part of London, to be let at 7s. a week. To-day, flats which are comparable in character, are being built by private enterprise and let at anything from 23s. to 32s. a week. It would be fair to say that the difference between the 7s., with an addition for higher rates, and the 32s is a reasonable comparison of the difference that occurs when control is removed.
There is a tremendous urge and impetus for the removal of control at an early date. There are 4,500,000 houses controlled. Suppose that control were taken off now and the increase of rent simply averaged £13 a year, the country would immediately be giving to the owners of that property £60,000,000 t year. That is a big sum to give to the investing class, one of whom spoke yesterday. The Minister ought to take into consideration the fact that the report indicated that there was every likelihood of a slowing down in house building. Nobody knows better than the Minister that there has been an increase in the cost of building materials. I was a member until recently of the housing committee of the Stepney Borough Council, and we viewed with misgiving—I know that other authorities must be similarly situated—the continuance of the housing plan that we had set out because the enhanced prices of building materials were so high.
We had estimates for the building of a block of flats, to cost about £41,000.

When we got the tenders the lowest was in the vicinity of £60,000. The increase was, so enormous that we asked the architect to explain the difference between the amount that he had estimated and the lowest tender that we had received, and he was able to assure us that during a period of four months the increase in the cost of building materials had been 12½ per cent. If councils and public authorities are faced with a situation of that character, one can readily understand that there is likely in the future to be a reduction rather than an increase in the building of houses to let at rents that people can afford to pay.
The great difficulty that working-class people have to face to-day is the fact that rents, particularly in decontrolled houses, take too large a share of the income of the tenants. It was computed that at one time the working classes paid one-sixth of their income in rent; to-day they pay one-third of their income in rent. The council on which I sat very frequently have had to refuse to accept people as tenants because we knew that people could not afford to pay the rent we asked. High rents are being paid to-day because people are prepared to half-starve themselves in order to keep a roof over their heads. I suggest that the Minister should be prepared to review the situation and see whether it would not be possible to extend considerably the period of control. Three or four years is much too short a time. It is very difficult for anyone to judge the date when control can end. The only fair method that could be adopted would be to allow a future Parliament to decide this question.

5.8 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am glad to have an opportunity of addressing myself to the Amendment and making a short statement on the Government's intention so far as this Clause is concerned. I must confess that I was pained and grieved at the allusions to myself that were made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr). I thought that one following his calling and devoted to the mission of peace and good will towards all men, might have been a little kinder to me. However, I will bear it and do the best I can. The proposal in the Bill is to continue the extension of the Act for a further four years. Previous legislation


has extended the Rent Restriction Acts for different periods. The 1920 Act gave a three years' extension; the 1923 Act gave two years, and the 1933 Act five years. Between 1925 and 1933 the Acts have been extended under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. We make the proposal for four years for the reason that I think it will ensure that the review of rent restrictions shall take place at the same time as the review of housing finance falls to be made under provisions which Parliament has recently approved and which are now on the Statute Book. The consequence will be that in 1942 the review of both sides of the position will take place. We shall be able then not only to see the progress that has been made under our new housing proposals but to examine the question of rent restriction.
In order that there should be no misapprehension in regard to our proposals the Government have taken the precaution of stating in a White Paper what their policy is for the future. I hope hon. Members will get a copy of the White Paper, for I should not like there to be any misapprehension in the matter. The White Paper says:
On this question of major policy,
that is, the question of control and de-control—
the Government agree, without reserve, with the judgment expressed by the Marley Committee with one dissentient and endorsed by the Majority Report of the Ridley Committee that it is desirable that 'the restrictions should at once be lifted from any class of property as soon as it can be shown that they are no longer needed in the general interest.'
On the last page of the White Paper there is this statement:
The Government believe that in the case of all three countries it is in the national interest that decontrol should be effected as soon as there is an adequate supply of housing accommodation; and they agree with the view of the majority of the Ridley Committee that decontrol should be progressive and should be related to areas and determined in the light of local conditions. The exact method and time at which such local decontrol should he brought about in England and Wales are matters which will call for further examination, and the Government, therefore, propose in due course to set up a committee to examine these matters.
Obviously, such a committee will have to be set up before the date mentioned in the Bill, and not afterwards.
In this examination it is the Government's opinion that, whilst the state of over-

crowding in an area must play an important part, all considerations bearing on housing conditions in the area must be taken into account before further decontrol is effected.
In that matter we are adopting the view of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) who was a member of the Committee and opposed to the view of the majority, who suggested that only overcrowding should be taken into account. We have taken the view that in any further decontrol all matters relating to housing should be taken into account. In the last paragraph relating to Scotland, it is said:
The Government consider that the question of further decontrol in Scotland must be subject to special consideration, and while it is hoped to accelerate the building of working-class houses in that country, it is clear that the Government would not be justified in initiating any general scheme of decontrol until conditions have materially improved.
The reason, therefore, for putting in this period is, in the first place, that it follows the precedent adopted in various Acts of Parliament dealing with rent restriction, and the explicit period of four years has been chosen in order to secure that a review of the position shall take place at the same time as the financial provisions made with local authorities come to a conclusion. The Government of that time will, therefore, be in a position before the expiration of the date to set up a committee to examine the whole matter. As far as the Government are concerned we think that any further decontrol should be determined in the light not only of the housing conditions generally throughout the country, but with reference to the position in particular areas.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Montague: For a gentleman whose exterior is more reminiscent of Pickwick than of Scrooge, I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to dangle Marley's ghost in front of us every time? I can assure him that we are not much worried by the bogy of the Marley Committee, which sat under different circumstances and conditions from those of to-day, and that we are determined to put our point of view regarding the housing conditions which exist at the present time. What the Minister of Health has just said surprises me. He has quoted from the White Paper and told us the intentions of the Government in reference to the general question of de-


control. He speaks of granting four years for things to settle down, so that we may be able to find by inquiry what the housing situation will be in 1942. If that is good enough in respect of the time-table which was proposed by the majority of the Ridley Committee why is it not good enough for class B houses? We are proposing to decontrol in September of this year all houses over £35 in rate-able value in England and Scotland and over £20 in the provinces. By our Amendment we suggest that the problem of decontrol in respect of other classes of B houses is just as much open to the desirability of further investigation as is the decontrol of class C houses some time in the future according to a policy to be suggested by the report of a committee which is to be set up.
In 1934 Sir E. D. Simon, a Manchester housing authority, with a number of colleagues considered the question of housing and made a statement as to the number of houses which would be required in a given time to meet adequately the housing needs of the country. He said specifically that for a moderate standard of housing it would be necessary to build 6,000,000 houses by 1951. Up to date through municipal control and private enterprise about 4,000,000 houses have been built, while the population has increased by 4,000,000 people. That means that we are considerably behind the proportionate increase which is required if Sir E. D. Simon's estimate of the needs of the nation was correct. The Minister will probably say that the Government recognise there is still a shortage by putting off any consideration of decontrol for lower class houses, or for what the Ridley Committee call "working-class houses," but that so far as houses in the upper B class are concerned there is an adequate supply. That is the argument for decontrol. It has been accepted that decontrol must depend upon an adequate supply of houses. Most of the witnesses before the Ridley Committee from the property owners side admitted that there would be an increase of rent if houses above £35 in London and above £20 in the provinces were decontrolled at the end of this year, not very much, but they said that the owners were entitled to an economic rent, which is not being paid at the present time. That was the line of argument.
It is true no doubt that in some areas you will find not a shortage but a slight surplus of upper B class houses, houses of a higher rate-able value, but that is not true of the country as a whole. In many areas there is a shortage. This is one of those things which are not amenable to averages. You cannot average human considerations. You must recognise that you have to deal with this question in stages, and also in respect of various areas. It is proposed to decontrol upper B class houses in September of this year. That will inevitably and unquestionably mean an increase of rent and a lack of security for hundreds and thousands of people, not all of them of the middle class but some of them of the working class.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): Whether this Amendment is accepted or not it will not affect that position. That question arises on the next Amendment.

Mr. Montague: I understand that the next Amendment is not being called because of its similarity to the present Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In either case this particular Amendment deals with the period, and the question of class B houses arises on Clause 2.

Mr. T. Johnston: While the Amendment does not deal with any particular class of house but with the period in which decontrol shall take place, it simply asks that no decontrol of any kind shall take place until Parliament otherwise determines.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would not be the effect of carrying the Amendment unless there were subsequent Amendments to the next Clause, which are not at present on the Order Paper.

Mr. Montague: I understand the Amendment is to leave the question of the decontrol of upper class B houses to Parliament in the future.

Sir K. Wood: This is purely a question of date. If the Amendment were carried it would leave the time undetermined. The proposal in the Bill is for a particular period, and I do not think the Amendment has any bearing on upper class B houses.

Mr. Montague: The Measure we are discussing is to decontrol upper class B houses in September of this year.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is so, but that proposal would not be affected by the Amendment. That is dealt with by the next Amendment.

Mr. Johnston: This is rather a difficult point and it is almost impossible to discuss the matter in water-tight compartments. In this Amendment it is true that only a question of time is involved. The right hon. Gentleman in the Bill says that it shall take place on a certain date, and by our Amendment we suggest that it shall not take place until Parliament at some later date, which is undetermined, shall so decide. With great respect I trust that you will permit my hon. Friend to adduce reasons owing to the shortage of houses why the Amendment as to date should be adopted by the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Obviously he is entitled to do that, but what I am pointing out is that the question whether the decontrol of class B houses shall take place in September of this year or not is unaffected by this Amendment.

Mr. Montague: I was aware of that, and I wanted to deal with the question of the supply of houses for the better type of artisan and the lower middle class.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is entitled to do that on the Third Reading of the Bill but I do not think he can do so on this Amendment.

Mr. Montague: In that case I hope I shall get an opportunity of raising the points I desire to raise on the Third Reading of the Bill. On the general question, we are moving this Amendment because we are perfectly satisfied that there is no adequate ground for any kind of decontrol yet; that it is most desirable that the question shall be further considered by Parliament and that the date for decontrol shall be left open for Parliament to decide in relation to the housing needs of the country.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: As the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has referred to me in connection with this matter, I should like to say how glad I am that the Government, after full consideration, did not adopt the proposal to apply the overcrowding standard as the

sole factor in determining the process of decontrol. After mature consideration, Sir Miles Mitchell and I made a reservation to the report stating that we felt that to adopt the low standard of overcrowding in operation at the moment would be the wrong method of procedure, and might lead to very great hardship in many parts of the country. It is true that the majority of the Ridley Committee did not envisage that the overcrowding standard at present in force should be applied, but suggested that another and a better overcrowding standard should be adopted before the process of decontrol based on it was set in operation. I would add that in our reservation we strongly dissented from the proposal for an automatic time limit, but that has gone, with the remainder of the proposals.
With regard to the Amendment, the possibility of a fixed date of control has not escaped my attention at any time, but if the date of 1942 is fixed, there will still be at least 4,500,000 houses controlled at that time, and providing there is a Parliament still in existence, there is no power in this country which can prevent that matter being decided by Parliament. It must always be a matter of political importance in this country, and nothing can prevent it from being discussed and decided by Parliament. The hon. Member above the Gangway referred to the estimate of Sir Ernest Simon that some 6,000,000 houses would be required. The hon. Member went on to say that Sir Ernest Simon was a man who had given much attention to the matter and who was really an expert on housing. I agree with every word the hon. Member said, but I would add that Sir Ernest Simon is so well informed on these matters and has given so much thought to them that he would never have given an estimate of the number of houses that would be required without taking into account the natural growth of population. There is one point on which I am not quite clear. I do not gather what exactly is proposed in the Government's statement of policy on these matters. I imagine that at some time well in advance of 1942 it is proposed to set up a committee which will examine closely the possibility of bringing about decontrol by areas. That is a matter which Parliament will have to consider when it arises, but I am not quite clear whether there will be one committee to


consider the detailed matters in the areas, and another to enable the Government to make up their mind on the whole issue.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: What has puzzled me about the Debate which has taken place on the Amendment is that every hon. Member who has spoken has agreed that the precise thing which the Government are determined to enact shall never take place. As at present drafted, the Clause lays down that control shall come to an end in 1942, but I understood the Minister to say that he by no means contemplates that control will necessarily come to an end in 1942. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), who is supporting the Government on this matter, said that the reason he wants the Bill to stipulate 1942 as the date on which control shall end is that Parliament will not be bound by it.

Sir K. Wood: The Clause does not state that, but that control shall continue until such and such a date.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman will also remember that if conrol, under this legislation, is to continue until a certain date it follows inevitably that control shall cease upon that date unless the legislature intervenes in order to prevent that from happening. What I am pointing out is that every hon. Member who supports the retention of the Clause as it is gives as his reason for saying that control shall continue until, and therefore end at, a specified date in 1942, the proposition that Parliament will not be bound by that, and that it may never come to pass. They say that the situation really is that which is set out in the Amendment, namely, that control must continue until Parliament otherwise determines. If that be so, why not say so in the Bill? Why lay down a definite date in the Bill if all that can be said in support of that date is that one need not stick to it, but that a Committee will be appointed to inquire into the question of whether one shall stick to it or not, and that what one really has in mind is that control shall continue until Parliament otherwise determines?
I shall suggest to the House a reason for this. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to trials and executions, and said that the Minister was proposing to have the execution first and

then submit the case to a court of inquiry afterwards. The House will bear in mind that between now and 1942 the right hon. Gentleman himself will be in the dock. There is bound to be an appeal to the country before 1942. The method which the Government have adopted in this matter, as in most other similar matters, is to endeavour—an endeavour which often succeeds when it ought not to do so—to make the best of both worlds. A great many of the people who normally support the right hon. Gentleman and the Government want control to come to an end as soon as possible. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman states in the Bill that it comes to an end in 1942. A great many other people, many of them having supported the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in the past, do not want control to come to an end. Almost half a million of those people will be submitted to the removal of control in September of this year, and a great many will look with fear and trembling to later events contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman says to the people who desire control to remain, and for whose support equally he angles, "Yes, but although the Bill says it will come to an end in 1942, we shall have an inquiry in the meantime, and perhaps it will not." Thus, when the trial proceeds, it will be left in doubt as to which way the cat is going to jump. It seems to me that if hon. Members agree, as I gather they do from the Debate, that control will not necessarily come to an end in 1942, it would be bad legislation for us to pass a Bill which says that it shall come to an end.

Sir K. Wood: It does not say so.

Mr. Silverman: If everybody agrees that control is to continue until Parliament otherwise determines, it would be good legislation for the House to accept the Amendment, which states that principle clearly. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment. If he says that for a number of reasons 1942 would be a convenient date for a review of the situation, there is nothing in the Amendment which would prevent the review taking place in 1942. If, on the other hand, it were convenient to have it either earlier or later than that date, it would be possible to do so under the Amendment. The Minister's hands


would be less tied if he accepted the Amendment, for then he would be able to consider the situation at a given time and to take action according to the situation. I believe that the House would be well advised to accept the Amendment.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: When this Clause was inserted in the Bill, the situation was entirely different from what it is now. The Minister knows very well that the national housing programme, almost to a house, was based upon the present low standard of overcrowding, and he has all the data and particulars to enable him to determine when there will be a sufficiency of new houses to meet the demand. I think he cannot deny that his estimate, which was made a considerable time ago, that 140,000 new houses would be built each year, is unlikely to be fulfilled. The situation has completely changed. The armaments requirements, air-raid precautions, the change in labour costs and the rapidly-increasing rates burden in many parts of the country, will all tend to slow up the housing programme. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself estimates that the housing shortage will be abated in 1942. We suggest that control should continue, after that date if necessary, until Parliament otherwise determines. The alternative which the Minister has offered is that at some time between now and 1942 he will set up a committee to investigate the situation as it then is. That is a very tentative proposition. It is highly unlikely that after the next election the right hon. Gentleman will be sitting on that bench. He and his colleagues may by that time find a comfortable location on this side of the House. In that case, we are to rely upon some future inquiry to be carried out by some Minister of Health who may take a different view of the situation.
I have made inquiries in the district with which I am associated. We have a housing programme which cannot possibly be fulfilled in the suggested period of four years. According to the official figures which have been given to me by the Durham County Council, at the end of the year we shall have 9,000 houses to be built under the slum clearance scheme and 23,000 houses to be built in connection with overcrowding. That is

a total of 32,000 houses as a minimum on the present low standard to be built in that time. The Durham local authorities do not at present, whatever may be the case in the future, feel themselves able to do it, by reason of the high pressure of rates. Rates have gone up this year by about 2s. in the £ over the county and many of the local authorities are burdened to such an extent that they are holding up their schemes of improvement. They now find that the Government have reduced the subsidy for slum clearance, which they anticipated, would have been utilised for the building of houses to relieve overcrowding. They feel that it will be dangerous in many cases to undertake these schemes for re-housing under present conditions, because to do so would, inevitably, mean an increase on current rentals as far as new houses are concerned to the extent of two or three shillings. Owing to the shortage of houses in the county—Durham being the most overcrowded county in the United Kingdom—rentals have been driven up to an inordinate extent. In Committee, I quoted cases which I carefully investigated, in which pre-war rentals have been increased by 70, 80, 90 and even 100 per cent. That is a parlous and difficult situation and if the Government persist in refusing additional aid to the county of Durham, then I believe that overcrowding conditions must to a large extent continue.
In those circumstances, it is sheer absurdity to say that at the end of four years the housing shortage will have been met. At present we are asking certain sections of the community, notably the engineers, to do certain things in the national interest—and this is germane to the question of housing, because many of those men are affected by the housing shortage and certainly will be most seriously affected by the abolition of control. They look with genuine apprehension to what will ensue when decontrol takes place. It will involve a mental burden upon a much greater section of the community, I mean the poorer section of the community, in the county of Durham and elsewhere, if it is felt that decontrol may take place, as is suggested or implied in this Clause, in four years time. The engineers are being asked by the Government to abrogate many of the rights which they have won only after long years of struggle and


difficulty, of negotiation and compromise. They are being asked to agree to dilution, to changes in the apprenticeship system and to unlimited overtime in order to fulfil what the Government believe to be and what we believe to be, an obligation upon their great industry. Surely, it is a small concession to ask for, in connection with a Measure of this character, affecting to a material extent the contentment and domestic happiness of a large section of the community, who are prepared to do their duty to the State, that Parliament, representing the State, should meet them on the lines I have indicated.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I wish to add one more speculation to those which have already been made as to why the right hon. Gentleman proposes the year 1942 in the Bill. Clearly, he is not doing it because he wants control to end in 1942. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is absurd to contend that 4,500,000 houses can pass out of control in 1942. When that time conies, another Bill will be necessary to deal with the situation. My speculation is that the year 1942 has been chosen because the right hon. Gentleman desires that the then Minister of Health—hoping of course that a Conservative Minister of Health will be in office—will be in the same fortunate position as he is in to-day. What is his position to-day? He is able to get a highly controversial Bill through the House because if we sustained the opposition to it too long, all houses would pass out of control. The right hon. Gentleman wants either himself or his successor, to be in that position again in 1942. The right hon. Gentleman smiles at that remark. If he were as statesmanlike as he is cunning, his legislation would be better. He has got the House of Commons into a trap, but his supporters will discover before many months that they will have to pay a high price for his cunning, because as a consequence of the situation into which he has brought the House, Members are not able to subject the provisions of this Measure to proper examination.
The right hon. Gentleman has to come to one of two decisions. There is such a

condition of anarchy now in the housing world that either control has to be exteded over the whole of it, or else control has to be slowly nibbled away. The right hon. Gentleman has decided in favour of nibbling it away. I say this in no party or controversial spirit, but his supporters will discover in their constituencies, that owing to this sort of trap—the kind of thing in which the right hon. Gentleman delights—the House of Commons has been largely deprived of the opportunity of exercising its critical functions on this Measure. He knows that if he brought a Bill before the House without this date, in other words if control were continued indefinitely, the other part of the Bill would not go through without substantial amendment. This is the bit of cheese to attract the mouse. In 1942 a little more control will be nibbled away. Then again we shall be near the date of decontrol and it will be suggested to the House again, "You must accept decontrol of certain additional houses, as a condition of continuing control of the rest." What the right hon. Gentleman is really doing is trying to keep control of this situation by making it necessary to have a new Bill in 1942 in order to continue control.
I make a prophecy. If the right hon. Gentleman's party is in office then—which will be a national disaster—there will be another Bill. It will be brought before the House near to the period of decontrol. It will not be introduced in 1941, but near the end of control. That Bill will continue control over a certain class of houses and it will introduce a further measure of decontrol, and, again, the House of Commons will find itself in the position in which it finds itself tonight. This is a conspiracy to force unpopular legislation through the House, because the right hon. Gentleman knows that unless he got us into this position, neither his own supporters nor hon. Members on this side, would give him this Measure.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 127.

Division No. 181.]
AYES.
[4.4 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bull, B. B.


Albery, Sir Irving
Balniel, Lard
Bullock, Capt. M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Bernays, R. H.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)
Boulton, W. W.
Butcher, H. W.


Apsley, Lord
Boyce, H. Leslie
Butler, R. A.


Assheton, R.
Briscoe Capt. R. G.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Baillia, Sir A. W. M.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Channon, H.




Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Holmes, J. S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Colville, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'rS. G'gs)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, W
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Joel, D. J. B.
Rowlands, G.


Cross, R. H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salmon, Sir I.


De la Bère, R.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Latham, Sir P.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandys, E. D.


Doland, G. F.
Liddall, W. S.
Scott, Lord William


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lindsay, K. M.
Selley, H. R.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Duggan, H. J.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
McKie, J. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Elmley, Viscount
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Emery, J. F.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Magnay, T.
Storey, S.


Errington, E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Everard, W. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Fildes, Sir H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Flndlay, Sir E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Fleming, E. L.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Fox. Sir G. W. G.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Touche, G. C.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Train, Sir J.


Furness, S. N.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Gledhill, G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Warrendar, Sir V.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wells, S. R.


Grimston, R. V.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Guest. Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Patrick, C. M.
Wise, A. R.


Hannah, I. C.
Peake, O.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Harbord, A.
Peat, C. U.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hartington, Marquess of
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Harvey, Sir G.
Petherick, M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hepworth, J.
Procter, Major H. A.



Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams. D. (Consett)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdars)


Adamson, W. M.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hall, J. H. (Whiteshapel)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Day, H.
Hardie, Agnes


Ammon, C. G.
Dobbie, W.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hayday, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Banfield, J. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Barr, J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Bellenger, F. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Foot, D. M.
Holdsworth, H.


Benson, G.
Frankel, D.
Hollins, A.


Bevan, A.
Gallacher, W.
Hopkin, D.


Broad, F. A.
Gardner, B. W.
Jagger, J.


Buchanan, G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Burke, W. A.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
John, W.


Cape, T.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Cassells, T.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Chater, D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)


Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cove, W. G.
Griffith, F. Kingslay (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Kelly, W. T.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Daggar, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Kirby, B. V.


Dalton, H.
Groves, T. E.
Lathan, G.







Leach, W.
Parkinson, J. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lee, F.
Pearson, A.
Thorne, W.


Leonard, W.
Price, M. P.
Thurtle, E.


Leslie, J. R.
Pritt, D. N.
Tinker, J. J.


Logan, D. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Tomlinson, G.


Lunn, W.
Ridley, G.
Viant, S. P.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Riley, B.
Walkden, A. G.


McEntee, V. La T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Walker, J.


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Westwood, J.


Maclean, N.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
White, H. Graham


Mainwaring, W. H.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Mander, G. le M.
Sexton, T. M.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Messer, F.
Silverman, S. S.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Montague, F.
Simpson, F. B.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Muff, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)



Paling, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

Division No. 182.]
AYES.
[5.58 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leads, W.)
Furness, S. N.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Albery, Sir Irving
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Allen. Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Patrick, C. M.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Peake, O.


Assheton, R.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Petherick, M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Balniel, Lord
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bossom, A. C.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Remer, J. R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harbord, A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Briscos, Capt. R. G.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rowlands, G.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hepworth, J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Burton, Col. H. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Scott, Lord William


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Selley, H. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Channon. H.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Joel, D. J. B.
Spens, W. P.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Keeling, E. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Storey, S.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cox, H- B. Trevor
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cross, R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lloyd, G. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Loftus, P. C.
Thomas, J. P. L.


De la Bère, R.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McCorquodale, M, S.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Evan


Denville, Alfred
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Doland, G. F.
Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Donner, P. W.
McKie, J. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Magnay, T.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wells, S. R.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Markham, S. F.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duggan, H. J.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wise, A. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fleming, E. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.



Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Nicholson, G, (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Mr. Munro and Major Sir




James Edmondson.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cove, W. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Grenfell, D. R.


Adamson, W. M.
Daggar, G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Dalton, H.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Ammon, C. G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Groves, T. E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies. S. O. (Merthyr)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Banfield, J. W.
Day, H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)



Barr, J.
Dobbie, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bellenger, F. J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hardie, Agnes


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Ede, J. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Benson, G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Bevan, A.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hayday, A.


Broad, F. A.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Buchanan, G.
Foot, D. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Burke, W. A.
Frankel, D.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Cape, T.
Gallacher, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Cassells, T.
Gardner, B. W.
Hollins, A.


Charleton, H. C.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Hopkin, D.


Chater, D.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Jagger, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)








Johnston, Bt. Hon. T.
Messer, F.
Simpson, F. B.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Montague, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muff, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Kelly, W. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Kirby, B. V.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lathan, G.
Paling, W.
Thorne, W.


Lawson, J. J.
Parkinson, J. A.
Tinker, J. J.


Leach, W.
Pearson, A.
Tomlinson, G.



Lee, F.
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


Leslie, J. R.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walker, J.


Logan, D. G.
Ridley, G.
Westwood, J.


Lunn, W.
Riley, B.
White, H. Graham


Macdonald, G.(Ince)
Ritson, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


McEntee, V. La T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Maclean, N.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland,N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


MacNeill Weir, L.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Wilson, C. H. (Atterclifle)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Mander, G. le M.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Mathers, G.
Sexton. T. M.



Maxton, J.
Silverman, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Anderson.

BILL PRESENTED.

ROAD HAULAGE WAGES BILL,

"to make provision with respect to the remuneration of persons employed in connection with the mechanical transport of goods by road," presented by Mr. Ernest Brown; supported by Mr. Elliot, Mr. Burgin, the Attorney-General, Captain Austin Hudson, and Mr. Lennox-Boyd; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Middlesex Hospital Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to constitute and incorporate a joint Board consisting of representatives of the County Councils of the administrative counties of the Counties Palatine of Lancaster and Chester and the administrative County of Derby and of the Councils of the County Boroughs of Blackburn, Blackpool, Bolton, Burnley, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Preston, Rochdale, St. Helens, Salford, Southport, Stockport, Warrington and Wigan; to confer powers on the board with respect to the prevention of the pollution and the obstruction of certain rivers, streams and watercourses; to confer further powers on the County Council of the administrative county of the County Palatine of Lancaster and on the local authorities in that county in relation to health, local

government and finance; to enact provisions with respect to roads, shell-fish, education and places of public entertainment; to amend the Shops (Hours of Closing) Act, 1928; and for other purposes." [Lancashire County Council (Rivers Board and General Powers) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Gateshead and District Tramways Company to run trolley vehicles and to abandon their tramways; and for other purposes." [Gateshead and District Tramways and Trolley Vehicles Bill [Lords.]

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVERS BOARD AND GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords.]

GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND TROLLEY VEHICLES BILL [Lords.]

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CREWE CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Orders of the Day — INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuation of Acts.)

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from "until," to the end of -the Clause, and to insert "Parliament otherwise determines."
The object of this Amendment is to secure that instead of decontrol under the principal Acts coming to an end on 24th June, 1942, it will be left open and come to an end only as Parliament determines. I wish to emphasise the impossibility, as I see it, of these Acts being brought to an end and of decontrol ceasing by that date, by a reference to my own constituency, which may be taken as typical of not a few. Yesterday the constituency of Birmingham was brought before us and we had a considerable discussion on it. I thought that to-day I might take another constituency of a somewhat different type that might
allure to brighter worlds and lead the way.
First of all I would refer to the published summary of the reports on housing and overcrowding that were submitted in the survey of the Department of Health of Scotland on 23rd April, 1936, supplemented by additional surveys which have been made since. My constituency consists of two burghs, the burgh of Airdrie and the burgh of Coatbridge. In the burgh of Airdrie a survey was taken of 5,657 houses, and it was found that, of that number, 1,614 were overcrowded. That is to say, there was 29 per cent. of overcrowding in the burgh of Airdrie, and later results which have come in have brought the percentage up to 29.54. In the burgh of Coatbridge, which is the larger of the two, the survey originally taken covered 8,890 houses, and of these it was found that 3,885 were overcrowded, showing a percentage of overcrowding of no less than 43.7 per cent. of all the houses surveyed. Recently I have received some additional figures from the town clerk, which, added to the previous figures, show that there is 44 per cent. of overcrowding.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned——

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—


1. Land Tax Commissioners Act, 1938.
2. Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Act, 1938.
3. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1938.
4. Dogs Amendment Act, 1938.
5. Trade Marks Act, 1938.
6. Middlesex Hospital Act, 1938.

And to the following Measures passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

1. Marriage (Licensing of Chapels) Measure, 1938.
2. Guildford Cathedral Measure, 1938.

CLAUSE 2.— (Decontrol of certain houses.)

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "relating to registration."
I will, if I may, with your permission, Sir, discuss with this Amendment the substance of a later Amendment which appears under my name and the names of two of my hon. Friends—in page 1, line 21, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the provisions of Section five of the Act of 1920 (which relates to restrictions on the right to possession and other like matters) shall continue to apply to any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts would apply but for the provisions of this Sub-section.
The first Amendment, the one that I am actually moving, is only a preliminary to enable us to discuss the substance of the other, and we will discuss them together, if we may, on the understanding that we do not debate the second one after the first one is disposed of.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's proviso would not be in order without the omission of these words, and, therefore, the discussion must obviously take place on this first Amendment.

Mr. Johnston: In our view, this is a matter of considerable importance, and I hope the Government will be able to accede to our request. As the law now stands, a proprietor is given three months in which to register his house as a decontrolled house. Under the Act of 1920, Section 5, a proprietor may only get control of a house if he proves certain things to the satisfaction of a law court. Even admitting that the Government are right

when they ask that upper class B houses should be taken out of control so far as rent is concerned, we are asking by this Amendment that the eviction of an upper class B tenant shall not be permitted unless certain complaints are proved to the satisfaction of a law court; that is to say, a landlord is to be permitted to get an increase of rent, but not to evict unless he proves certain things to a court. What do we ask him to do? By Section 5 of the Act of 1920 a landlord of a controlled house may only get possession provided he can prove, either that the tenant has failed to pay his lawful and legitimate rent, or that the tenant is using his house for an immoral purpose, or that he has become a nuisance to his neighbours, or that he has allowed the house to deteriorate to the disadvantage of the proprietor. There are certain other stipulations of a smaller character which I need not particularise. Essentially, however, if a tenant who has failed to pay his rent, or who has allowed his house to deteriorate, or who has kept it for an immoral purpose has either of these things proved against him in a law court, then the landlord can get possession.
What we ask by our Amendment, quite simply and seriously, is that even if Clause 2 of this Bill is passed, decontrolling an upper class B house so far as rent is concerned, we shall not permit the eviction of a tenant unless and until he can be proved in a law court to be guilty of one or other of the offences which I have mentioned. It is true that this is in a way temporising with the devil, but we cannot help that. Under a later Amendment we have tried to limit the amount of rent which a landlord can exact from a tenant, but still he ought not to pitch


him on to the street unless he can prove that he is guilty of one or some of the offences which Parliament, in its wisdom, specified in Section 5 of the Act of 1920. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has always relied, in these discussions, on the reports of the Ridley Committee and the Marley Committee, and he has said that, in the opinion of those committees, which carefully investigated the matter, on the average there will be no shortage of upper class B houses, and that, therefore, there will be economically some protection against the wholesale persecution or exploitation of these tenants if decontrol takes place.
That may be true, on the law of averages, taking from John o' Groat's to Land's End, but there are areas in this country, little pockets of places, where there is a shortage of upper class B houses, where persecution can take place, and where there is no decent alternative accommodation, and I would beg of the right hon. Gentleman to consider that the standards of housing change. The class of house considered fit and proper for bottom class C tenants yesterday will not be considered fit and proper for them to-morrow. Standards change, they move upwards, and they demand more and better quality houses, more and better sanitary conveniences. The drive is eternally and ever up towards the upper class B house. If that is so, I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to give the upper class B tenant this protection at any rate, that if he insists upon his being mulcted by the landlord in additional rent, he should at least give him the protection that he and his wife and family, his goods and chattels, shall not be put out on the street unless and until a law court of the land, a county court in England or a sheriff court in Scotland, has found him guilty of one or other of the malpractices specified in Section 5 of the Act of 1920.

6.14 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: Hon. Members will be relieved to know that I do not propose on this occasion to quote the report of either the Marley Committee or the Ridley Committee, but my answer to this proposal is that I do not think it would carry into effect in any way what the right hon. Gentleman really desires. will assume, for the sake of argument on this Clause, that I agree with the right

hon. Gentleman in his proposal, but if one looks at the very first Sub-section of Section 5 of the Act of 1920, one finds this:
No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom, shall be made or given unless—
(a) any rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid…
If this Amendment were on the statute book and some of the landlords were as the right hon. Gentleman described them and put rents at such a height that it would be impossible for the tenants to pay, they could immediately put into operation this paragraph.

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman has tripped over himself this time. Will he look at the Act of 1920, where, at the end of the paragraphs in Section 5, he will see the words,
in any such case as aforesaid, the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment.
If a landlord in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman has visualised jumps the rent from £10 to £100, no court in the land would evict under this section.

Sir K. Wood: Paragraph (a) of Section 5 of the Act of 1920 which refers to any rent lawfully due gives rise to the consideration whether the rent charged is a reasonable one. If it is and the rent is owing, the Section would come into operation. The right hon. Gentleman will find that it is illusory to protect the tenant in this way without any control. There can be no security of tenure without rent control and I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's object could not be met by his Amendment. As regards upper B class houses the Bill represents the considered policy of the Government which is based on the conclusions reached by all the members of the Ridley Committee except the three members representing the party opposite, and I cannot ask the House to accept the Amendment.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman did not convey to the House whether, if it were possible under the 1920 Act to attain what we are seeking, he would be in agreement with our proposal. I take it that he is not in agreement with us, although the reason he has given is not the real reason. May I ask the right


hon. Gentleman to note our next Amendment, which, if it is called and carried, would limit the amount of rent which the landlord could charge on getting control of class B houses. I do not know whether the Government are going to meet us on that point, but if they do the right hon. Gentleman's argument will fall to the ground. The purpose of our Amendment is not to limit the landlord's right to charge a reasonable rent, although we have endeavoured to persuade the Minister that he should not give the landlord that opportunity, but it is to provide that, even if he does get a reasonable rent—and I do not think a landlord can get an unreasonable rent, for he can get only the market value of the premises—he should be restricted in his powers of getting possession of the premises. There are landlords who will not want to get an increased rent from a particular tenant, but who, for some reason or another, often a frivolous reason, will give notice to quit and get the tenant out irrespective of the rent he is prepared to pay.
All we are asking is that the landlord should be restricted in his powers in turning the tenant out into the street. In the 1920 Act, Section 5 provides that the landlord, before he can recover possession of the premises, must show to the county court judge that there is alternative accommodation which the tenant can have if the judge makes an order. If there is plenty of alternative accommodation, obviously the judge will make the order. As the law stands, in the case of decontrolled houses or premises the landlord has to take the tenant to court to get an order for eviction, and the judge, if the premises are decontrolled, has no option but to make an order for possession. It is true that he generally accompanies the order with a stay of execution for 28 days or more, but that is purely a matter of discretion for the judge. He must give an order for possession in the case of a decontrolled house The B class houses which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to decontrol in September will come in that category. As soon as September comes and the landlord has given the proper notice to quit, the tenant can within a short time be put on the street, even though he is prepared to pay a reasonable rent. That is very unjust treatment to that class of tenant, and the purpose of the Amend-

ment is not to control the rent but to control the powers that the landlord has of putting the tenant into the street, more or less at a moment's notice. We fear that a good many ejections will take place on unjustifiable grounds apart from rent, and we are moving the Amendment in order to avoid that.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know that I entirely agree with the presentation of the Amendment which has just been made by my hon. Friend, or that I entirely agree that a landlord cannot get an excessive rent. I know that my hon. Friend did not quite say that and that he does not think it, but when he reads the words he used he will see that they are open to that interpretation. The whole point of this legislation is that landlords can and do charge excessive rents. If no landlord charged excessive rents in any circumstances, no matter what the market conditions were, there would never have been any demand for control. The Minister of Health seemed to do less than justice to the arguments of my right hon. Friend. Under Section 5 of the Act of 1920 two conditions have to be satisfied before possession can be given.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I would point out to the hon. Member that Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1920 Act is repealed. Part of it is re-enacted in Section 3 of the 1933 Act and the remainder in the Schedule, although the wording is slightly different.

Mr. Silverman: I only used that particular citation because it had been used in the argument. The point is that under the legislation as it exists two conditions have to be satisfied before the landlord can get possession. One is that there must be arrears of rent. The other is that
in any such case as aforesaid, the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such judgment.
That does not mean that the county court judge has a right to say whether the rent is a reasonable one or not, but it still leaves in the county court judge a discretion to say, "Although I cannot determine whether the rent charged is a reasonable one, and although the landlord has satisfied me that the rent is in arrear, still do not consider it reasonable in all the circumstances to give immediate



possession." In the 1933 Act, Subsection (1) of Section 3 says:
No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom shall be made or given unless the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such a judgment.
In fact, the amending legislation to which the Solicitor-General refers really strengthens it, because, whereas under the old legislation the reasonableness was a mere qualification introduced at the end of the Section, it comes first in the 1933 Act which has taken its place. The effect of that surely would be to give a greater measure of security of tenure than would exist without it. If my right hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted undoubtedly there would be the difficulty that some landlord wanting possession might do what my hon. Friend said no landlord ever did, that is, to charge a rent greater than the market value, but that would not lead inevitably to the result, which the Minister invited us to accept, that the county court would then have no discretion but would have to make an order for eviction. That is not so.
If the Amendment were carried the judge would no doubt have to accept that the rent was in arrear, but if he thought that in all the circumstances—and there is no limit to what circumstances he has to consider—of the particular case it was unreasonable to grant an order for possession or for ejectment, he could decline to do so and it would be his duty under this Act to decline. There would then obviously exist a real check upon the power of the landlord to raise rent unduly. The real sanction that the landlord has by which he secures payment of his rent is his right to possession of the premises on notice given or, in certain circumstances, without it, or to distrain for the rent due.
If the Minister would only accept some limitation upon the landlord's right to do that, vesting it in the discretion of the county court judge, we should then have some check upon the otherwise inevitable rise in rents which will follow the decontrol granted here. It is very difficult for us on this side to understand why every proposal we make with the object of imposing some check upon a landlord's right to raise the rent of decontrolled houses

should always be met with some objection, either to the principle of it or to the drafting of the Amendment or that it should be left finally to be rejected by the overwhelming weight of the Government's majority. It is no good the Government saying, "Even if we agree with you the Amendment does not carry out your purpose." Perhaps it does not, but if the right hon. Gentleman does not think so let him redraft the Amendment. He has means available for drafting Amendments such as we do not possess. We do the best we can, though no doubt it is often very inadequate. We want him to accept the principle, and if we have not created satisfactory machinery for the purpose let him do it for us; we are not committed to any form of words, but will he not co-operate with us to some limited extent in the fight we are making to guard against the rise of rents which will be inevitable upon the decontrol of houses?

6.32 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member invited the co-operation of the Government, but in order that there should be that co-operation there must be some identity of aim. There is no indentity of aim.

Mr. George Griffiths: I could not have said it better myself.

The Solicitor-General: That is the highest tribute I have ever had in this House. The Government accept the conclusions of the Ridley Committee that the time is now ripe for the decontrol of the upper class B houses, and if that view is not accepted as fundamental of course other proposals may be put forward as alternatives; but that is the proposition from which we start. All control involves hardship, and all decontrol may involve some hardship, and the whole course of the progress of the Rent Restriction Acts involves an estimation from time to time of where the balance of hardship lies. Accordingly, committees have been set up from time to time to give the Government guidance as to the most appropriate way in which the burden of hardship on those whose houses are controlled can be relieved, consistently with the minimum amount of hardship on those living in houses which are decontrolled in that way. The Ridley Committee have said in the clearest terms that hardship will not result, broadly


speaking, from the removal of control in the case of the upper class B houses, and the Government accept that conclusion. That is really the answer to the argument which is put forward from the other side.
That being the point of view of the Government, they do not, of course, go halfway to meet the arguments of hon. Members on the other side, but there are many other reasons why their particular solution of the problem would not work at all. Their proposal is an attempt to separate rent control and possession control. What the Amendment says in effect is that the landlord shall not be able to get control of his premises but shall be able to get control of his rent. Legalistically I am not sure what the position would be as regards a tenant who remains in a house. Suppose the landlord makes a demand for an increased rent—say any figure you like, say a rent 500 per cent. in excess of the existing rent, in order to make it as ridiculous as possible. What is the position of the tenant? In those circumstances we cannot, I think, imply an acceptance of the tenancy under the terms of paying that rent—I do not know whether we can or not—nor is there any machinery by which a county court is empowered to act as a rent court.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) pointed out that under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 the court cannot exercise its power, cannot come to the conclusion that a thing is reasonable, without having regard to all the circumstances. That means that it has to discharge a judicial function, has to exercise its discretion on a review of all the circumstances. I do not think the fact that the landlord had done something which the law permitted him to do, increase the rent, would be one of the circumstances.

Mr. Silverman: The object of the Amendment is to protect the tenant in the security of his tenure. The hon. and learned Gentleman argues that an unscrupulous landlord could get out of that by charging a rent which was neither fair nor reasonable, by rocketing the rent sky high—not to get the rent but in order to evade what would then be the law of the land. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that that would not be one of the circumstances which a county court judge would take into consideration in deciding whether it was reasonable to

give such a landlord the possession which, but for that circumstance, he could not get?

The Solicitor-General: That is the point which I am arguing. I very much doubt whether, as a matter of law, a county court judge would be entitled to take into account what the landord is to be free by law to demand, any rent he wanted or was asking for the premises. I entertain a most serious doubt as to whether a county court judge would be entitled to take that into account in determining whether it was reasonable to make an order for possession. But supposing that is wrong and that he is entitled to take it into account; then we should be, by this Amendment, doing something which we on this side of the House have repeatedly argued against, that is, turning the county court into a rent court, doing by a side wind the very thing which the Government have argued against both upstairs and in the House and for which we have given our reasons, because the judge would then have to consider, viewing the demands of the landlord "Do they constitute a circumstance so unreasonable or so reasonable that I ca n exercise my discretion under this Section?" Therefore, we say that it is only an alternative way of setting up a rent court.
I admit frankly that from the legal point of view I do not know under what terms the tenant would be in possession if this Amendment were passed, because the landlord would be demanding a rent and the tenant would be staying on, and normally the staying-on of the tenant would be deemed to be an implied acceptance of the rent. An action to recover possession would not be the only remedy open to the landlord. He could levy distress—there are a thousand and one things which he could do to the unfortunate tenant—if that be the correct view of the law, and I am not binding myself to the statement that it is—in order to make the tenant's life quite impossible. For those reasons I do suggest that the Amendment as it stands would not give any substantial safeguard to the upper class B tenant, but would put them in a most difficult position. It might lay them open to serious obligations, the extent of which I cannot define, and it would impose upon the county courts a


function which the House has repeatedly declared that it does not want to give them.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: May I have the leave of the House to address one further word to the Solicitor-General? I am not a lawyer, but I have watched how this kind of thing has been "done upon the Opposition" since the Bill was brought in. We argue that the tenant should have the protection of an appeal to the law before he is evicted, and the Minister of Health says, "Oh, that is not enough, you must protect him in his rent." We come along with an Amendment to deal with rent, and then the Minister says "Control of rent is no use, what we want is to give him protection against eviction." It is on record that those are the words he used in Committee upstairs. So the Government get us either way. Apart from the purely legalistic arguments, by taking things in compartments in this way what the Government say is correct, but what we argue is that on moral grounds, on economic grounds, and on grounds of public policy and interest, some protection should be given to the upper class B tenants against harsh and unconscionable treatment arising from a monopolistic control of their houses. The Government say that the Ridley Committee, the Marley Committee and some other committee have said that there will be a sufficient number of these houses, and that that fact in itself will provide an economic protection.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman—never mind the lawyers for a moment: Will he not admit that there are areas in this country where that economic protection will not exist? Whatever he may say about the averages for the whole country, will he not admit that in places like Coatbridge, where 44 per cent. of the people are overcrowded, and in other areas where there are munition works, there is a shortage of houses for B class tenants—a temporary shortage if you like—and that therefore the economic defence will fail in those cases? We on this side say that we should like to give these B class tenants some protection against eviction. The Government say "No." Therefore, whatever the legal arguments may be, we are going into the Lobby tonight on moral grounds, on economic

grounds, and on the grounds of public interest, in favour of giving protection to B class tenants.

6.43 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: With the leave of the House I should like to add a final word. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has put his point of view with great clearness. The Government have been bound to deal with these Amendments and to explain the meaning of them to the House, so that the House may know what would happen if they were embodied in this Measure. That has been the duty of the Solicitor-General and myself in regard to all these proposals, as it would be the duty of any Ministers who occupied our positions. The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that there is a fundamental difference of opinion on this matter between hon. Members opposite—at any rate, some of them—and those who sit on this side of the House. We are adopting in the case of the B class tenants the recommendation of the majority of the committee which was set up to consider the case. It is true that the Marley Committee did take into account the fact that, obviously, when certain sections of houses are decontrolled, certain difficulties arise, but they came to the conclusion, as anybody would in considering this matter, that they had to consider on balance what was the right thing to be done; and both the Marley Committee and the Ridley Committee said that on the whole, while not disguising that difficulty might arise, decontrol of the B class houses was the right thing to do, and the Government have adopted their proposals.
It is true that in future rent legislation areas may have to be considered. I will say a word on that subject on the Third Reading. It may very well be that we shall have to turn our attention to particular areas in considering further decontrol and have regard to their condition; but that is another matter. The right hon. Gentleman has put his point of view clearly, and I cannot take the matter any further this evening beyond saying that we are following the advice that has been given to us by the majority of the committees, whose members have included Members of this House as well as other people who were outside politics altogether.

6.46 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: The right hon. Gentleman is always so reasonable that he often disarms criticism, and it is certainly difficult to be angry with him or to find fault; but we have to be realists in this matter. There is a genuine alarm among thousands of people who have for many years been living in what we rightly describe as the higher class B house. It is not always simply a question of rent, but may also be actual attachment to the house in which they are living. I received a letter a day or two ago from a complete stranger who lives in a seaside town which has been developing very rapidly during the last few years. He writes:
Might I trouble you with one or two facts as they affect us personally?"—
That is to say, the tenants of these houses—.
House built by speculating builder landlord himself, one of many. He has a four or five-figure rent roll. In 1910 they cost under £300. He fixes the rents at his own figure "—
before the War—
at 10s. 6d. per week, undertakes repairs and is satisfied. Then the War, 40 per cent. increase and nothing done inside. Now, under decontrol, we are threatened with £1 per week and shall probably have to pay it because there is no alternative to be got for less.
The trouble is that they cannot leave the neighbourhood. They are attached to it. It is the kind of town where people depend for their living upon the locality.
I think there is a need to soften the hardness of the blow of the change-over from control to the mercy of the landlords. These Amendments are very difficult to draft, especially to a Bill of this character, which is legislation by reference. The Solicitor-General may be surprised to hear that I am a bit of a lawyer. Many years ago—I will not say how many they were—I qualified as a barrister. My slight legal training makes it extremely difficult, as the hon. and learned Gentleman admits, to draft Amendments of a practical kind. We are a democratic country, and I suggest that we have to consider the public who send us here. If there is a real feeling of alarm, the Government should try to devise something to relieve the pressure upon these most desirable people. Most of them are supporters of the Government. They are just the kind of people who automatically vote Conservative be-

cause it is more respectable to do so. They regard themselves as a bit above the black-coated worker. It is important for them to keep up appearances. They live in what I have heard described as "a little semi-attached house." I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might exercise his great ingenuity in softening the blow to that large army of people, many of whom will suffer very much from the change-over.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Cassells: I support the Amendment on various grounds. In connection with another Amendment the right hon. Gentleman invited the attention of the House to Command Paper 5667 and he referred in particular to page 4 where we find a reference to the precise nature of the present Government's policy. For the benefit of the House I should like to read what the paragraph states. It is as follows:
The Government believe that in the case of all three countries it is in the national interest that decontrol should be effected as soon as there is an adequate supply of housing accommodation.
I assume that the strict interpretation which must be placed upon that sentence is that the Government definitely appreciate that if there is not an adequate supply of accommodation, individual tenants will be left at the mercy of the individual landlords. I would furthermore refer to the position in Scotland, which is dealt with in the same paper. I find the following statement at the bottom of page 3:
In Scotland, on the other hand, the survey of overcrowding has disclosed that the average percentage of overcrowding is 22·6.
When I refer to an answer given by the Secretary of State for Scotland to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) on 22nd February, I find some rather astonishing figures of the percentage of houses overcrowded in various localities in Scotland. Glasgow, for example, is given as 29·12; Dundee, 23·94; Coatbridge, 44·79; Port Glasgow, 42·14, and, in small burghs, Cowdenbeath, 39·93, and Lochgelly, 35·83.
From my knowledge of those localities I am satisfied that there are many upper class B tenants who are covered by those percentage figures of overcrowding, and I cannot appreciate why there should be the slightest difficulty in the minds of the


Government in affording discretion to the judges. We are constantly hearing from Government Benches that our judges are men of discretion in whom the greatest trust and confidence may be placed. The Solicitor-General made the rather astonishing statement that county court judges and sheriffs-substitute in Scotland would be compelled to sit in cases where the ordinary rent courts should operate. The truth is that they have been doing so for years. They have been sitting under Section 31 (1) dealing with questions as to whether they might in their discretion grant an Order or a judgment for the possession of any dwelling-house to which the principal Act applied. If ever the policy of the Government were laid stark bare and naked, we find it so this afternoon. Falling from the lips of the Minister of Health there has been a complete justification for the Amendment. He pointed out that there was a distinct probability of rocketing in rental charges, and the Solicitor-General said he would take the preposterous case of rocketing to the extent of 500 per cent.; but only last night figures were placed before the House by hon. Members from the Birmingham Division, and among them I find one case of decontrol where the rental jumped from 6s. 6d. to 25s. per week, an increase of approximately 400 per cent.
Some supporters of the Government seem to possess a great faith in the landlords of this country. There was a statement from the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) last night which, I think, I might repeat. He said he disliked the expression "good and bad landlords" and he went on to say that he would rather characterise all landlords as men who were unfortunately carried away by their private instincts so far as finance was concerned. We do not dispute that there are good landlords, but laws are not passed in this House to protect tenants against good landlords. They are passed, admittedly, to protect tenants against what one might describe as a minority movement in the landlord section of the community. Does the Solicitor-General really appreciate what will eventuate if the Amendment is not accepted? When first, as a young lawyer, I was faced with complaints emanating from tenants of decontrolled and controlled houses with regard to rental

charges which were being exacted, nobody seemed to be bothering about them. There was one case where the rental in decontrolled subjects was returned to the assessor for valuation roll purposes. For a whole street of houses there were rents rising approximately from £10 to £15 a year and the landlord was actually mulcting the tenants in at least double that sum. He was defrauding the valuation assessor, and at the end of the day—you can call it legalised blackmail if you like—the pistol was held to his head and he had to refund to the tenants something like £800.
I appeal to the Minister to look with confidence on this Amendment. Can it be said that we are asking anything unreasonable? We deny anything of the sort. We are vesting that discretion in the judge. In regard to the levying of distress, we have been given the English procedure, and not the Scottish procedure. The position in Scotland is that in decontrolled subjects the tenant must be taken to the sheriff-substitute before a demand for ejectment can be conceded. Why should not the procedure which has been followed in the past operate in the future? Has the right hon. Gentleman no trust or confidence in our judicial system? If hon. Members are wise in their day and generation, they will not just go blindly into the Lobby and vote against this Amendment. I am satisfied that if they do so there will be serious repercussions.

7 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Yesterday the Front Government Bench exuded so much sympathy that we were almost washed away in the flood of it. To-day there is no sympathy, but at least we have got down to the hard fact that on this particular Amendment there is a definite cleavage of principle between that side of the House and this. I think that is all to the good. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General told us quite truly that control involves hardship on landlords and that decontrol may involve—he was very careful to insert the word "may"—hardship on tenants. I think it is quite certain that it will involve hardship on some tenants. Since the passing of the first Rent Restrictions Act every succeeding Act has been one to mitigate the hardships on the landlords. There has been no Act that has substantially mitigated the hardships that decontrol has brought to


the tenants, and what we are asking to-day is that there shall be some words inserted in this Bill which shall mitigate those hardships. That does not appear to me to be a wrong or revolutionary proposal, but the answer in principle is that the Government do not think it worth while to put words into this Bill that will mitigate the hardship on tenants.
I want to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of the first time that any Government talked of decontrol. That was in 1923. Through a pure accident I managed then to get very much into the middle of the picture. There was a by-election at Mitcham in 1923, a constituency the whole of the southern part of which is occupied by people living in what are now called upper class B houses—the solicitor's clerk and that type of small man who goes into the City every morning, and lives in these houses of £35 rateable value and just over. The hon. and learned Gentleman, I am quite sure, has not forgotten the fate that overtook the Minister of Health, who went down and proposed decontrol for that constituency. If he has any doubt, let him ask the present Minister of Labour, who was the Liberal candidate on that occasion and just saved his deposit. Now we ask, having voted on the general issue, that there shall be no decontrol for these people, that there shall be a measure of retained control with regard to security of tenure. It is not enough for the Government, with all the resources of the draftsman behind them, to say, "Well, even if you were right your Amendment does not do what you want, because the drafting is not good enough." I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the courts have not been very complimentary about the official drafting of this type of Measure, and if the drafting in this case were a bit fantastic it would be nothing new in this type of legislation.
If the Government feel that these people, who really are most defenceless, ought to receive any assistance at all they should be prepared to put the Government draftsman to work in order to give them protection. But the answer, of course, is that they do not intend to protect them. The hon. land learned Solicitor-General holds out no hope for them. As the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said, he will rely upon them to

vote Conservative because it is respectable. But I would ask him to remember the series of by-elections in the early part of 1923, of which the Mitcham by-election was the most notable. There was one at Willesden, and there was one in the Edgehill division of Liverpool, and there were other by-elections that year in this particular type of constituency where, owing to the state of mind produced by the fear of decontrol, even those people declined to vote Conservative, and there was a Labour Government before the end of the year.
Now it is not the fear of decontrol that is going to preoccupy these people, but the actuality of decontrol. And will anybody contend that in these areas, which are to be found round all our great cities, there is yet such a supply of houses of the type that these people require that the market value would be other than a famine value? I agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) that the landlord can get only the market value, but when there is a famine the market value is astoundingly high. Let me tell the Solicitor-General what happened to the house in which I lived in 1923. After I was eelcted Member of Mitcham I moved from Epsom, where I was living, to Mitcham. I was a controlled tenant at Epsom, and I was paying 13s. 7d. a week rent, which was the maximum the landlord was entitled to charge. I moved out on a Saturday. On the Monday a person moved in and paid 35s. a week, and that house has never been much below that figure since. That is still the position in the suburbs of London and of the great cities of this country. You are handing over these defenceless people, who have no trade union, who have no organised body to protect them, to the mercy of people who will get the market value in a market which can command famine rates.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may feel that in producing this cleavage of opinion between this side of the House and the other, and in abandoning the attitude of sympathy which befogged the whole atmosphere yesterday, he is doing a good thing for his party. I venture to say the only people he is benefiting—and that not for very long—are the landlords of the type of property which is being decontrolled for these class B tenants. I have no doubt myself that the reaction in the country will be as great


as it was in 1923 when this Bill has become an Act and these defenceless people find themselves handed over to the mercy of rapacious landlords.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 120.

Division No. 183.]
AYES.
[7.10 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Albery, Sir Irving
Fleming, E. L.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Patrick, C. M.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Peake, O.


Apsley, Lord
Furness, S. N.
Petherick, M.


Assheton, R.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Ll.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanel)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balniel, Lord
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T.P. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Remer, J. R.


Bernays, R. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harbord, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bossom, A. C.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Boulton, W. W.
Harvey, Sir G.
Rowlands, G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hepworth, J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Bull, B. B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Burghley, Lord
Holmes, J. S.
Sandys, E. D.


Burgin, Rf. Hon. E. L.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Solley, H. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Channon, H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Spens. W. P.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Joel, D. J. B.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr. H. W. (Oldham)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs)
Tate, Mavis C.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Latham, Sir P.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Cox, H. D. Trevor
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lipson, D. L,
Train, Sir J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Lloyd, G. W.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Cross, R. H.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Loftus, P. C.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Watarhouse, Captain C.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


De la Bère, R.
MacDonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wells, S. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, J. H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Denville, Alfred
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Markham, S. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duggan, H. J.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Elmley, Viscount
Munro, P.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Enlwistle, Sir C F.
Nall, Sir J.



Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff,S.)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Everard, W. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Captain Dugdale and Mr.




Grimston.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Burke, W. A.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cassells, T.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Charleton, H. C.
Fool, D. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Chater, D.
Frankel, D.


Ammon, C. G.
Cluse, W. S.
Gardner, B. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cove, W. G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Gibson. R. (Greenock)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Daggar, G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Banfield, J. W.
Dalton, H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Barr, J.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Grenfell, D. R.


Bellenger, F. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Bonn, Rt. Hon, W. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Benson, G.
Day, H.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Bevan, A.
Dobbie, W.
Groves, T. E.


Broad, F. A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Ede. J. C.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)




Hardie, Agnes
Leslie, J. R.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Logan, D. G.
Sexton, T. M.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
MoEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, S. S.


Hayday, A.
Maclean, N.
Simpson, F. B.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Magnay, T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Maxton, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Messer, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Holdsworlh, H.
Montague, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hollins, A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thorne, W.


Hopkin, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tinker, J. J.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Tomlinson, G.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Oliver, G. H.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Parkinson, J. A.
Walkden, A. G.


Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Pearson, A.
Westwood, J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, M. P.
White, H. Graham


Kelly, W. T.
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon, T.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Kirby, B. V.
Ridley, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Lathan, G.
Riley, B.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Lawson, J. J.
Ritson, J.



Leach, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lee, F.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Leonard, W.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Mr. Speaker: The next four Amendments on the Paper deal with the same subject as affecting different parts of Great Britain, and I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House to discuss them together, voting on each separately if that be desired.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "thirty-five," and to insert "forty."
I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling. I was proposing myself to make the same suggestion. The intention of these Amendments is to prevent as many houses as possible from going out of control, because we think that the proposal to decontrol these houses is somewhat premature. In spite of what the Minister has said with regard to the Marley and Ridley reports, other factors have arisen since those reports were made, which have put an altogether different complexion on the housing situation in this country. It must be borne in mind that the number of controlled houses cannot increase. In this connection the Ridley Committee, in paragraph 43 of their report, said:
In considering what effect any further measure of decontrol would be likely to have on the general level of working-class rents, it must be borne in mind that …the number of controlled houses cannot increase. I tis in fact, steadily diminishing as a result of demolition…
There is another factor which could not have been in the minds of the Ridley Committee, much less the Marley Committee. It relates to a point which has been referred to on more than one

occasion by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). He said on the Second Reading that those landlords who owned small amounts of property were in the majority, but I think that neither he nor the Minister has quite appreciated what a tremendous change has taken place with regard to the holding of house property. The small shopkeeper has largely disappeared owing to the growth of multiple shops and the co-operative movement, and the same thing is happening now with regard to house property. Large financial groups, finding that they have no other outlet for their money, are buying up house property and exploiting the tenants. This is being done, as has already been mentioned on another Amendment, in districts which are so overcrowded already that it is not possible to build houses competitively and, consequently, it is possible to demand maximum rents. Moreover, having got control of the property, they resort to all manner of devices to force out any tenants who may be in controlled property, so that they may obtain complete control. Under the Bill, no fewer that 450,000 houses of rateable value between £35 and £40will be decontrolled. That is a very serious inroad into the present position.
In dealing with a question like this, hon. Members are apt to talk about the amount of building that is going on, but it does not necessarily follow that, because a good deal of building is going on, there is any great increase in housing accommodation, because, as the Ridley Committee themselves have pointed out, a large amount of demolition is going on, and the demolition is often a long


way in advance of the new housing accommodation that can be supplied. These Amendments have been put down with the object of trying to maintain control for a longer period than is set out in the Bill in the case of as many as possible of those houses which are at present controlled. There is another aspect of the matter which may have escaped the attention of these Committees and of some Members of the House. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), in replying to my right hon. Friend a little while ago with regard to Sir E. D. Simon, said that Sir E. D. Simon had no doubt taken into consideration the factors to which my right hon. Friend referred. But some of those factors, as I have already indicated, Sir E. D. Simon could not have had in mind, because they have arisen since.
In addition, there is a certain amount of overcrowding, which is now beginning to increase owing to the increased cost of living and also owing to the shortage of houses that is resulting from the slowing down of building. There may be a slowing down of building by local authorities, because the Measure recently passed will reduce the contribution to local authorities to enable them to build, and that is bound to have an effect, anyway on the poorer local authorities, who will not be able to go in for the same amount of building as they have hitherto. I brought before the Committee at least one instance that alarmed me. I had a letter from the town clerk of one of the Metropolitan boroughs pointing out that, in the new housing estates which have recently gone up, overcrowding has already commenced because people are being forced out owing to the fact that houses are falling out of control and there are not sufficient to meet the demand. Consequently, in spite of the regulations that may be made by the local authorities, there is already a considerable percentage of overcrowding in property which has only recently been erected.
In such circumstances, I suggest, it is a mistake for the Government to insist rigidly on the very letter of the Bill. It is true, and they do not challenge it, that they are mainly concerned with the difficulties of landlords, but at the same time they ought to have some regard to the tenants, and particularly to the class of tenants who have to present a more

or less respectable front to the world, though probably in many cases they are worse placed than the manual labourer, who can live under different conditions because of the economic position he is supposed to occupy. These people, also, are to a large extent the most helpless, having no machinery or organisation for their own defence. I hope the Minister will at any rate be able to see his way to make this small concession, which, while it may not lead to any advance on the present number of controlled houses, will at any rate diminish the number that will be decontrolled as and when the Bill becomes an Act.

7.27 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member will no doubt recollect that we discussed this matter very fully in Committee, and that the view we take is that the terms of the Bill should be adhered to. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government only have regard to landlords, and not to tenants, but that is a mistake, as is obvious from the proposals in the Bill dealing with the lower class B houses.

Mr. Ammon: What I said was that we had had an admission. I was referring to what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to the effect that the Government were mainly concerned about the landlords.

The Solicitor-General: I did not make any admission at all. What I said was that control was a hardship, and decontrol was a hardship, and our object was to hold the balance fairly.

Sir K. Wood: I must say that I do not know of any admission, and I think the Solicitor-General would be the last person to make an admission. I should like to say a word about the housing corporations which have been operating in London and some of our large cities, and which, I understand, buy blocks of property and hold them. The House will appreciate that, so far as the houses bought are controlled, such corporations are bound by the law, just as other landlords are, and it is only in the case of decontrolled houses that they are, like other landlords, able to charge economic rents. But I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, because I know he has considerable knowledge of this matter as far



as London is concerned, that these corporations in fact deal only with the cheaper classes of houses. So the effect of the Bill in preventing further decontrol of lower B class houses will, at any rate, hamper any rent-raising proclivities they may possess, and I do not think that the decontrol of upper B class houses will affect the position much, because where these houses are in fact occupied by what we call the working classes—not a phrase I like very much, but the common one—it is generally the case, where there are two or more families in one house and

where that class of tenancy is concerned, that the present law is to remain unchanged. I must, in the circumstances, take up the same attitude as I adopted in Committee, and ask the House to adhere to the proposals in the Bill, on the ground that the Committee, which very carefully inquired into this matter, recommended them.

Question put, "That the word 'thirty-five' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 117.

Division No. 184.[
AYES.
[7.32 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Furness, S. N.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Assheton, R.
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Peake, O.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gluckstein, L. H.

Petherick, M.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bernays, R. H.
Harbord, A.
Remer, J. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Hartington, Marquess of
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Boulton, W. W.
Harvey, Sir G.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hely-Hutohinson, M. R.
Rowlands, G.


Bull, [...] B.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Burghley, Lord
Hepworth, J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Butcher, H. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Salmon, Sir I.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Sandys, E. D.


Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Selley, H. R.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Joel, D. J. B.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Tale, Mavis C.


Croom-Johnson, R. P
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Cross, R. H.
Latham, Sir P.
Train, Sir J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lipson, D. L.
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


De la Bère, R.
Lyons, A. M.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mabane, W. (Huddersheld)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Danville, Alfred
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Wells, S. R.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duggan, H. J.
McKie, J. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson. Major Sir J
Markham, S. F.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ellis, Sir G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Elmley, Viscount
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Entwistle. Sir C. F.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)



Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Everard, W. L.
Munro, P.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr.


Findlay, Sir E.
Nall, Sir J.
Grimston.


Fleming, E. L.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Barr, J.
Chater, D


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Bellenger, F. J.
Cluse, W. S.


Adamson, W. M.
Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Bevan, A.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford


Ammon, C. G.
Broad, F. A.
Daggar, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Dalton, H


Aske, Sir R. W.
Burke, W. A.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cassells, T.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Banfteld, J. W.
Charleton, H. C.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)




Day, H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Ritson, J.


Ede, J. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kirby, B. V.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Frankel, D.
Lathan, G.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Gardner, B. W.
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton. T. M.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leach, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Gibson, R, (Greenock)
Leonard, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Grenfell, D. R.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, J. (Llanetly)
Mainwaring, W.H.
Thorne, W.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Mander, G. le M.
Tinker, J. J.


Hall, J H. (Whitechapel)
Mathers, G.
Tomlinson, G.


Hardie, Agnes
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Messer, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Montague, F.
West wood, J.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Wilson, C H. (Attercliffe)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Holdsworth, H.
Parkinson, J. A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hollins, A.
Pearson, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hopkin, D.
Price, M. P.



Jagger, J.
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Mr. Groves and Mr. John.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in the case of a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts cease to apply by virtue of the provisions of this Subsection the rent recoverable by the landlord shall not exceed by more than ten per centum per annum the rent recoverable in respect of the dwelling-house on the twenty-eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight.
The purpose of this Amendment is very clear. We seek to limit to 10 per cent. the amount of increased rent which the landlord shall be permitted to charge upon the upper B class houses which will be decontrolled in September of this year. Already the landlord is allowed at least 40 per cent. of the increase. He may have had more than that. If there have been structural improvements, he will have had 80 per cent. on his expenditure. But if he has had already 40 per cent.; if the costs of repairs have fallen considerably, as they have since the permitted increases were introduced; if, therefore, it can reasonably be proved that he is better off than in 192o, we submit that it is not unreasonable to ask that he shall not take anything more than an additional 10 per cent.
When we moved an Amendment something similar to this in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said, "Whatever I may think of the merits of this proposal, and even if I were sympathetic to it in principle, this is not the way to

do it, because if you only say that a landlord is not to be permitted to increase his tenant's rent by more than 10 per cent., and if you still leave the landlord power to get possession and evict his tenants, all the landlord will have to do will be to give notice to the tenant to quit; and then the new tenant will pay up." We had to accept that upstairs. Then to-night we start by asking that there shall be no eviction. The Solicitor-General, who is put up to reply, says, "That is not the way to do it. If you ask for protection against eviction, that is wrong. What you have to do is to protect tenants against increased rents." So they have it both ways. Upstairs they say you must deal with eviction first; and here they say you must deal with increases of rents first. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that there is nothing unreasonable in this provision. The essential purpose of this Amendment is that the tenant who has already had an imposition of 40 per cent. by way of increase on his rent and is now to suffer decontrol in 1938, shall have not more than an additional 10 per cent. added to his rent when that decontrol comes. We say that the cost of the landlord's repairs is falling; he is benefiting in every way; and we ask the Government to agree with this proposal to protect almost half a million tenants from what will be, in some districts at all events, considerable increases in rent this year.

7.45 P.m.

Sir K. Wood: I regret to have to give these answers on personal grounds to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to take these Amendments as they appear on the Paper. It is true that on a previous Amendment my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General criticised the Amendment in a certain way, and I must criticise this Amendment for the same reason that I gave upstairs in Committee. The real fact is, as I dare say the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, that to secure effective control you must control both the tenure and the rent. Directly you endeavour to separate the two, as has been done in the two Amendments, one in relation to tenure and the other in relation to rents, you get into serious difficulties. I appreciate the intention and desire of the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit with him, but when you come to deal with the Amendments on their merits you are up against the difficulties which I indicated when we were in Committee upstairs. If you were once to accept the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made on the question of rents, there is really no reason why, if there was to be a limitation of rent in respect of decontrol, it should not also apply to the houses which have gone out of control on the ground that the landlord has re-gained possession. To be logical, you would come to the original proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, which I know he desires to place on the Statute Book, that there should be control of all houses as far as rent and tenure are concerned. He would like to set up tenancy courts.
The intention of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends is in direct opposition to the proposal contained in the Bill, but he has adopted a method which is open to him. I would probably have done the same if I held his views. It is an attempt to put forward another view of this proposal, but, as I indicated upstairs, it would not be effective. If you conceded a principle of this kind, there would he no reason why it should not apply to all people. It is for that reason that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: If ever I have the misfortune to stand on the scaffold expecting execution, I shall pray earnestly that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will be the hangman. I am certain

that his bland and amiable countenance, looking at me as I disappear into eternity, will considerably modify the unfortunate experience. I feel that way because I am extremely sympathetic towards numbers of his constituents who are in a similar position to those who are in my constituency and in other constituencies around London. Some time ago I saw the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) in his place. In his vast, expanded area of bricks and mortar there are, I am certain, a large number of people who are as apprehensive of execution as I might be in the instance that I have given. It is rather astonishing that the hon. Member for Ilford has not spoken on behalf of his constituents this evening. I will, therefore, perform that responsibility. Quite definitely, there are many in that area who have grave fears as to the operation of this Bill in a few months' time. Although they assume that they do not belong to the working class, the difficulties which surround them in having to prepare their family budgets are as severe as the difficulties of those who are called the working class.
Many of the alleged representatives of the so-called lower middle class in this House have not sufficiently paid attention to that kind of constituent. It is very strange for us on these benches to pose as the defenders of the lower middle class. We constantly have to perform duties which are supposed to be performed by hon. Members who sit on the benches opposite. Obviously, this Bill will deal very hard blows at numbers of the so-called middle class tenants in this country who for the most part are supporters of hon. Members opposite. I would like those who have supported hon. Members opposite and who are in this category to realise that, when it comes to a critical issue, it is to the Labour benches they must look for support and assistance, and I am giving that assistance now. There are many who have carefully budgeted for months and sometimes years ahead, and they are finding themselves in very great financial difficulties at the present time. Unfortunately, they often join ratepayers' associations and Municipal Reform leagues and disguise themselves under various other aliases, and assume that the responsibility for their difficulties is otherwise than it really is. Here is one difficulty that is to be placed upon the backs of the lower middle class which


would not have been imposed upon them if they had voted for the right people and had taken some political interest in the affairs of their country, and had understood the landlord more clearly.
I speak on behalf of that lower middle class not only in my own constituency, but also in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and the hon. Member for Ilford and in many other constituencies around London. I earnestly trust that, if this class of tenants are to be executed in the coming September, at least they should know to what extent that execution is to take place. Perhaps the strangulation can be modified in some measure if 10 per cent. increase is allowed. I am sure that many of the lower middle-class tenants in the country, if they knew precisely that this unjustifiable increase would be limited to 10 per cent., would feel a little easier in the circumstances. As it is, of the 450,000 who will be affected, many of them, already with great anxieties in their domestic life, are wondering exactly what will be their increased anxiety when September comes round. A little mercy should be exercised in this respect, and the Government should say "Though we must impose at least some punishment, we will limit that punishment to 10 per cent." That would mean that lower middle-class families, when drawing up their domestic budgets in the privacy of their front room, would know that, though their expenses were to be greater, they would not definitely be so. They would then be able to say, "We can perhaps postpone the last three or four payments on our wireless set or on our Austin Seven, or perhaps limit our holidays or economise in some other way." I plead with hon. Members opposite, and with the Minister in particular, for the sake of many of their own rather servile supporters in the constituencies and of many obedient sheep who follow the Minister and his colleagues at election times, to give them at least some little reward for their obedience and servitude by limiting the increase to 10 per cent.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was an extraordinary one, and certainly very weak. The whole purpose of his argument appeared to be that, because the proposition contained in the

Amendment would apply only to a comparatively few people, therefore it was wrong. It was not considered right to apply the principle of a limited increase of rent to the whole of the people who have been, or are to-day, in controlled houses, and, therefore, the concession must not be given to anybody. That is the logic of the argument which the right hon. Gentleman put forward. Originally a limit was put on the amount of increase that a landlord can levy of 40 per cent. I remember the arguments which took place in this House at that time. We were told that the reasons for fixing 40 per cent. were, in the main, that there were certain increases in the price of commodities which landlords had to pay in respect of repairs. Careful calculation had been made on behalf of the Government as to what would be a reasonable compensation to the landlord in respect of the increase in the cost of materials and of labour for repairs. It was fixed at 25 per cent. The Minister of Health, who personally took a leading part in the discussion on that occasion, told us that the proposal was reasonable and that we ought to accept it.
If the argument was sound at that time—and I think that it was fairly sound, at any rate—is it sound to-day? Would the Solicitor-General or anybody else argue that, compared with the prices which landlords were compelled to pay for building material for the purposes of repairs and labour at that time, prices to-day are anything like as high. Does not that lead one to a reasonable view that we ought not to be asking tenants to pay more, but to pay less? The landlord is not being compelled to pay as much for repairs which he is supposed to do. We have had experience of what landlords do when houses go out of control. I know of the case of two houses in my area of exactly the same type, standing side by side, and occupied by similar tenants, in respect of which one of the tenants pays almost double the amount paid by the other tenant. Nobody can justify that sort of thing. I do not think that any Member of the Government would come into a constituency such as mine and attempt to justify the conduct of landlords in these cases. Is it not reasonable that we should ask the Government to do something for the tenants of the houses which are now to be put out of control?
I am speaking on behalf of many personal friends who are living in the type of house which is to be decontrolled. I know what they feel, and I know what they fear. Rents will go up, not merely 10, but probably 30, 40, 50, or even 100 per cent., if the opportunity offers. I do not admit that the Government represent these people any more than I do. I have many of them in my own constituency, and in the constituency in which I live there are many scores of these people. They are in real fear of what is going to happen. I am surprised that, with the knowledge of what has happened to other tenants when their houses have gone out of control, and the shameful exploitation to which they have been subjected, anyone should come forward and say that, in spite of that exploitation, other tenants shall submit to similar exploitation and robbery. I hope that even now the Government will take the other course.
Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in the Government are so anxious in these cases, as they have done in regard to the other houses when they have been decontrolled, to allow people to be exploited? If in any other business people carried on the practices that have been carried on by certain landlords in regard to house property, there would be such a public outcry that the Government would be compelled to take some action. Companies have been formed—they are operating in my own

area and in other areas—and are buying up property in the belief that this Act will be carried, and they are making ready to reap very big harvests by robbing the people who are living in these houses. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what is going to happen. The Government are playing into the hands of the landlords, with deliberation, so that they will be able to exploit this section of the middle class public as they have exploited poorer tenants in the past.

We are not asking for anything unreasonable in saying that, if there is to be further exploitation, there should be some limitation to the exploitation. In view of the fact that prices from the point of view of the landlord are lower, and that his expenses are lower than when the original 40 per cent. was fixed. we are not asking too much when we ask that not more than an additional Io per cent. can be allowed to the very had type of landlord who will benefit from this Act. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make some concession and give some form of protection to the very unfortunate class of people who are to be exploited very badly if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 145.

Division No. 185.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Ede, J. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Adamson, W. M.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)


Amnion, C. G.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kelly, W. T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Frankel, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Banfield, J. W.
Gardner, B. W.
Kirby, B. V.


Barr, J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lathan, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lawson, J. J.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leach, W.


Benson, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Leonard, W.


Bevan, A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Leslie, J. R.


Broad, F. A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Homsworth)
Logan, D. G.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Burke, W. A.
Groves, T. E.
McEntee, V. La T.


Cassells, T.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maclean, N.


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Chater, D.
Hardie, Agnes
Mander, G. la M.


Cluse, W. S.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mathers, G.


Cove, W. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Maxton, J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Messer, F.


Dalton, H.
Henderson, T. (Tradaston)
Montague, F.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Holdsworth, H.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hollins, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Day, H.
Hopkin, D.
Parkinson, J. A.


Dobbie, W.
Jogger, J.
Pearson, A.




Price, M. P.
Silverman, S. S.
Walkden, A. G.


Pritt, D. N.
Simpson, F. B.
Westwood, J.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
White, H. Graham


Ridley, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Riley, B.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Ritson, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Thorne, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)



Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Tinker, J. J.



Seely, Sir H. M.
Tomlinson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sexton. T. M.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. John and Mr. Anderson.




NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Nall Sir J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J


Apsley, Lord
Gower, Sir R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Assheton, R.
Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, O.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Harbord, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bernays, R. H.
Harvey, Sir G.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Remer, J. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bull, B. B.
Hepworth, J.
Rowlands, G.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cazalet, Thetma (Islington, E.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Selley, H. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Channon, H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'fc N'w'gt'n)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Keeling, E. H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, Colonel C I. (Montrose)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Latham, Sir P.
Tate, Mavis C.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lindsay, K. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Cross, R. H.
Lipson, D. L.
Train, Sir J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


De la Bère, R.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loftus, P. C.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Denville, Alfred
Lyons, A. M.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Dower, Major A. V. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Wells, S. R.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duncan, J. A. L.
McKie, J. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wise, A. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Markham, S. F.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Everard, W. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Fleming, E. L.
Munro, P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Furness and Major Herbert.

CLAUSE 6.—(Miscellaneous Amendments.)

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move. in page 6, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2).
The object of the Amendment is to deal with a problem which arises from the practice of compounding, by which an allowance is made to the landlord when he pays the rates in advance. We suggest that the consequence of the proposals in this Sub-section, will be to cause the incidence to fall hardest on the poorest

class of tenants. The position under the Act of 1920 is that one of the permitted increases is the difference between rates actually payable in the current period and in the period including the date 3rd August, 1914. That is, up to the time of this proposal in the Bill, the landlord has been able to add the difference between the actual sums paid in rates. The new proposal made in this Sub-section would enable him to add the difference between two entirely hypothetical sums; sums arrived at by adding the compounding allowance to the rates actually paid.


We suggest that in heavily rated areas like Liverpool this will mean a higher sum to be paid by the tenants of the lower assessed houses.
I will give one concrete example which will convey to the House the suggestion behind the Amendment. I will take a house in Liverpool where the assessment is fir. In the current period 1937–38 the actual amount paid under the compounding, the composition rate, was £15 11s. 5d., whereas in 1914 the amount paid under the composition rate was £2 16s. That means a difference of £2 15s. 5d. Under the Government's proposal, in the current period on the hypothetical full rate of fir the sum paid would be £8 16s. 11d., while on the hypothetical full rate for 1914 it was £4 9s. 8d., a difference of £4 7s. 3d. That means that under the proposal a landlord will be able to add another £1. 11s. 10d., or approximately 7d. per week, to the rent of these lowly assessed houses of £11. The reason for this is obvious.
When you are dealing with full rates you have two factors which have increased, the assessments of houses in the case I gave from £9 to £11, and, in the second place, the rates, which have considerably increased since 1914. They were then approximately 10s. in the £ to-day they are 16s. in the £, that is in the case of Liverpool. The two factors which go to make up the difference, namely, the rates and the assessment, have increased, and, therefore, under the present proposal you are taking the difference between the present assessment and half the old assessment, whereas under the law as it stands you are now taking the difference between -half the present assessment and a fraction of the old assessment. In those cases where you have compounding in the present period and in the old period, it is hound to tell against the tenants of lowest rated houses. In fairness to the proposal it is only right to admit that it does tell in favour of the tenants of houses of a slightly higher assessment. If the assessment of a house has been raised so that it comes out of the compounding period at £17, then, of course, you will be comparing, under the present proposal, the actual rates to-day with the full rates in 1914, instead of with the compounded rates in 1914. Therefore, you will get a smaller difference, and it will show in

favour of the tenants of houses of £17 and upwards.
But I respectfully suggest that the tenants we want specially to look after are those of the lowest rated houses. In cases like this we have to judge for ourselves and decide whether the balance of hardship is greater in the case of tenants of the lowest assessed houses. In deference to the argument we have had from the Treasury Bench I ought not to conclude without some reference to the reports of which we have heard so much. I agree that in paragraphs 100-102 the Ridley Committee put forward a suggestion which is embodied in this Sub-section, but I invite the attention of the Government to this fact, that as far as can be seen from an examination of the Minutes of Evidence on which the Ridley Report was founded, the question of compounding was not discussed at any great length, nor was a great deal of evidence directed to it. They seem to have gone back to the findings of the Marley Committee when circumstances were different, and when the full results of this state of affairs were not appreciated. I, therefore, suggest that this is a matter which wants further consideration. If I am right, taking the Liverpool cases as an example, there will be an increase of 7d. per week, and that is not an inconsiderable sum when dealing with people who inhabit these houses. If I am wrong, and the more important considerations are those of tenants of higher assessed houses, then I think the matter does deserve further consideration in order that I may be proved wrong. If there is even a chance that I am right and that the hardship will fall on tenants of houses assessed at the sums I have mentioned, it is something which the House should try to prevent. I say that this matter at any rate deserves further consideration, which I hope it will receive.

Captain W. T. Shaw: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will acquit me of any discourtesy if I limit the length of my reply to the case he has made. The matter was fully exposed in Committee upstairs by the Attorney-General, when this same point was under discussion, and I can do no better than compress the


arguments he then used. First, as regards the burden. Taking the country as a whole, the effect of this Clause will cancel out, according to the calculations we have made. There may be a slight increase in some districts and a slight reduction in others. It is impossible to say, as regards any given area, what the exact effect will be, but such examination as we have been able to make seems to suggest that the figures which the hon. and learned Member gave in regard to Liverpool are very much on the high side. What does this Sub-section do? It gives effect to a recommendation of the Marley Committee which was subsequently a recommendation of the Ridley Committee. The facts are these: In certain areas the landlord is allowed to compound with the local authority for the payment of rates, he makes himself responsible for the rates, and if the tenant fails the local authority does not lose. Not only that, he has to find the money very often in advance before the rates are due. In some cases it is a condition of getting the compounding allowance that he finds the rates before they are actually due. He has the responsibility, he has to pay early, he has to advance capital, and then has the duty of collecting the rates on behalf of the local authority from the tenant. For these reasons, he is given, as a matter of convenience, a compounding allowance.

Mr. McEntee: Is it not a fact that the rates are actually due on the day when the rate is made? How, therefore, can the landlord be called upon to pay the rates before they are due?

The Solicitor-General: As I am informed, the practice with some local authorities is that, in order to get the compounding allowance, the payment must be made by the landlord before it is due. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I agree that the hon. Gentleman seems to get a good point against that practice where it exists.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: The landlord has himself received six months rates in the rent before he has to pay any.

The Solicitor-General: I am afraid I do not follow that. The point I am trying to make is that the landlord, for services which he, by himself and by his capital, provides, is given a compounding allowance. In the case of

Nicholas versus Jackson, the House of Lords gave a decision on the meaning of the words "rates payable" which appear in Section (2, b) of the 1920 Act:
An amount not exceeding any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of rates,
which he is allowed to use as the basis for his permitted increase of rent. They decided that that applies only to money that he actually pays over, and that he is not to be given any advantage for the expenditure to which he is put for a service for which he gets the compounding allowance. Everybody who has examined that has agreed that it was unfair. There is no earthly reason why a tenant should be given an advantage over the landlord for services which the landlord has himself rendered, and in respect of which he compounds with the local authority. That is what the Marley Committee pointed out. In paragraph 103 of their report, after referring to the case of Nicholson versus Jackson, they stated:
The effect of this judgment upon the Rent Restrictions Acts is that—

(a) whatever the poundage of rates and the percentage of compounding allowance, the landlord retains the amount allowed to him in 1914;
(b) The tenant benefits where the amount of the current compounding allowance has increased since 1914, and the landlord benefits where the amount is less than in 1914;
(c) In the case of properties brought into compounding for the first time (i.e. where there was no compounding allowance in 1914), the tenant gets the benefit of the compounding allowance in place of the landlord for whom it was intended.

We think that, in equity, the law as settled by the decision in Nicholson versus Jackson should be altered so that, whatever the compounding allowance might be at any particular moment it should enure to the benefit of the landlord.
The Marley Committee went on to say that the only reason they did not recom]ment that was that it would mean the reopening of the assessments in a very large number of cases. When the Ridley Committee came to consider that matter, they had to consider another decision of another court which seemed to conflict with the decision in the case of Nicholson versus Jackson. Therefore, the state of the law was in some confusion. The case which they had to consider was that of Strood Estates Company, Limited versus Gregory, which was decided in 1937. On account of that decision, it was in any case


necessary to make a considerable number of alterations in assessments. Therefore, the Ridley Committee, looking at the matter afresh, said that they agreed with the Marley Committee that, in equity, the money paid to the landlord for services that he renders should not inure to the benefit of the tenant, that the reasons which had prevented the Marley Committee from recommending it had disappeared, because in any case there had to be an alteration in a very large number of assessments, and that, therefore, it was an appropriate occasion for making an alteration which both the Marley Committee and they considered to be fair and equitable. Having expressed their agreement with the Marley Committee, they went on to say:
We also think that if the contrasting principles established by these two decisions are both allowed to stand unaltered throughout the period during which, if our recommendations are adopted, control will continue, they will be a constant source of embarrassment to all concerned with the application of the Acts. We regret to recommend any alteration of the law which will involve a general recalculation of rents of houses within the compounding limits, but we consider it the lesser of two evils, and we accordingly recommend that the necessary statutory amendment should be made"——
as we are making it. That is the position. For those reasons, although in some cases the tenant will no longer get the benefit of an inequitable advantage —[Interruption.] I agree that in the case of thousands of assessments he will cease to get an advantage to which he is in no sense entitled in equity. He is getting an advantage which is entirely accidental, due to the interpretation placed upon this particular Section being entirely different from the interpretation placed upon another Section.

Mr. G. Griffiths: When did the House of Lords give its decision?

The Solicitor-General: In the case of Nicholson versusJackson, the decision was in 1921, and in the case of Strood Estates Company, Limited versus Gregory it was in 1937. They were both interpreting words which to the layman mean the same thing, words which appear not in the same Section, but in the same Act. In one case the words were:
An amount not exceeding any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of rates,

and in Section 12 (1, c), there were the following words:
The expression 'net rent' means, where the landlord at the time by reference to which the standard rent is calculated paid the rates chargeable on"——
To anyone except a lawyer, there is very little difference between those words, but the difference in emphasis was that in the first case, according to the House of Lords, the word "payable" meant actually handing the money over, whereas under the other Section, in which one had to calculate the net rent, the words "paying the rates" mean payment of the total rate before deducting the compounding allowance. There is no sense in allowing a contradiction such as that to remain on the Statute Book. It is true that it will involve the reopening of a number of assessments, but taking the country as a whole, we are advised that it will not make any difference in the total sum—some people will gain and some will lose. The amounts in any case will be small, and as it is clearly unjust that the position should remain as it is at the present time, we feel that this is an appropriate moment to make an alteration, and therefore we cannot accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Montague: Are we to understand from what the Solicitor-General has said that the tenant, as a tenant, has to pay the total extra rate independently of the allowance made to the landlord?

The Solicitor-General: Yes.

Mr. Montague: He has to pay the allowance made to the landlord as well. So he has to pay twice over.

The Solicitor-General: The local authority benefits. If the local authority did not benefit it would not go through this procedure. It says, "It is cheaper for us, and we have greater security in collecting our rates by allowing the landlord to do it." Therefore the landlord is discharging work which otherwise the local authority would have to do and is running a risk which the local authority would otherwise have to take. Instead of the local authority losing its rates because the tenant cannot pay, the landlord loses, if the tenant cannot pay. Those are services which the landlord renders, instead of the local authority and in respect of which he is paid these


small sums. Why should the tenant in those circumstances claim the benefit of those services rendered by the landlord as a matter of equity? Surely if anything inures to anybody, it ought to inure to the landlord.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: The Government's attitude on this Amendment was stated by the Minister when he pointed out on a previous Amendment the difference between the attitude of hon. Members on this side and that of hon. Members opposite towards these questions. Here the Government find themselves in a difficulty. The Solicitor-General says they have found what he considers to be the best way out of it by following the Marley Report. He admits that in seeking a way out of the difficulty, they have come down on the side of the landlord because the Marley Report suggested that they should do so, and in order to bolster up his case, he cites the practice, what is far from being the actual practice. As a matter of fact the landlord is allowed to compound with the local authority in those interests of both, and the landlord who pays rates is not called upon to pay those rates until he has himself collected them; I contend that the advantage which the landlord receives in the first six months of the year, in collecting the rates from the tenant, ought to be set off against the advantage which the Solicitor-General argues ought to go to him, because of his having met his liabilities before the end of the year. Surely he receives some interest on the money which he has collected?
I take it that the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that the landlord is entitled to some return for the money laid out by him. In answer to that, I suggest that the landlord is not called upon to pay the rates under the compounding arrangement until the six months period for which the rate is levied has passed. Surely we are entitled to ask that the rate which he has collected in rent from the tenant should be set off against the amount for the further six months? It is the tenant who is paying for the first six months and who is called upon afterwards to pay interest on the money that the landlord has provided for the second six months. In effect he pays the rate and then pays the landlord for

simply advancing the amount of the second six months. That is all there is in it, and it seems to me, as I say, that the Government have come down on the side of the landlord as against the tenant. In extenuation they say that it will not amount to much, but it appears as though they realise that the tenant is being robbed by this Bill. Therefore, they think that a few more coppers each week will not matter much to the tenant

8.39 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I ask the Solicitor-General to consider what will be the effect of the Bill if it becomes law without this Amendment. If the Solicitor-General had the same experience of this system as the Minister doubtless has had, he would know that in practice the people who receive compounding allowances collect the money from the tenant over a period of either three months or sic months. If the rate is a half-yearly rate, they collect three months rent before they pay any rate. They have the use of that money for three months. In the second half-yearly period, they collect another three months' rent before they pay again. So, in each half-yearly period, they collect three months' rent from the tenant before they pay anything at all and any hon. Gentleman opposite who is in the habit of dealing with finance, would, I am sure, be very glad of the opportunity of holding and using money on those terms.
What will be the effect of the Bill without this Amendment? It will just give the landlord another opportunity of increasing the rent of the tenant. I do not think either the Solicitor-General or the Minister could deny that. The Solicitor-General appears to justify it on the ground that it will not amount to very much. I do not know how much the increase will be, but I know that in some instances the compounding allowance is 15 per cent. and that will mean a considerable increase in rent to poor tenants. It is all very well for us to talk about small increases, but many of these tenants feel very keenly an increase of two or three shillings a week, and in many thousands of cases it will mean at least that, and perhaps considerably more. I hope the House will accept the Amendment. It would enable a practice which has gone on for at least 20 years to continue. The landlords in my area never complained of that practice, and I do not think there have been complaints in any


other area, because the landlords knew that they were on a good thing. The Government now want to put them on to a better thing, and no doubt they will thank the Government for doing so, but there is no reason, in equity, why it should be done, and when the Solicitor-General talks about equity in this connection he must be doing so with his tongue in his cheek.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Logan: If this Amendment be not accepted it will mean that 75 per cent. of the population of Liverpool of the poorest class will have to pay higher rents. I go further and say that in all the industrial areas of this country this inequality will be borne by poor people. They will have to meet the burden of increased rent. It is a most unjust proposal, because while people in some of the better class houses will benefit, the people in the poorer class of houses are bound to suffer loss. On the ground of equity, and because of what the landlords are already getting, the House ought to accept the Amendment. In Liverpool we are badly hit by unemployment, and any additional strain on the poor will be very keenly felt, and blame must attach to the Government if they do not accept this Amendment.

8.44 P.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I should say that 75 per cent. of the tenants in my division receive the 15 per cent. rebate. At the end of six months when the landlord comes to collect the rent he says to the tenant, "Your rent this week instead of being 12s. 6d. is 5s. 9d., because you get the rebate." If my memory serves me aright, when the first Rent Restriction Act was passed, this point was contested in the court and the decision given was that the landlord could claim only the actual rent that he paid, that is, the rate less the 15 per cent. rebate. This Clause definitely states, "You can put that in your pocket and walk away with it."

Mr. Fyfe: It is not quite as the hon. Member says, if he will allow me to interrupt him. Under the present law the landlord can claim to increase the rent by the difference between the composition rate existing to-day and the composition rate in 1914. Under the Government's Clause he can claim to increase the rate by the difference between the full rate existing to-day and the full rate in 1914, and it is my submission that the effect of that will be to cast a greater burden on the poorer class of houses. It is not a question of the landlord getting away with the whole of the composition, but it is a question that the gap between the full rates will be greater than the gap beween the compounded rates.

Mr. Griffiths: I was looking at the back end of the Clause, and it is clear to a layman, because it says:
…the amount of any allowance made to the landlord under any of the enactments relating to allowances given where rates are paid by the owner instead of by the occupier shall be treated as part of the amount payable by the landlord in respect of rates.
Therefore, from my standpoint, the tenants will not get the rebate in future. The tenants in my division will not in future get this 15 per cent. rebate, because it says clearly that the landlord can claim any rebate that he may have. I know the Solicitor-General fumbled about at the Box a bit, and he may be a good Solicitor-General in certain things, but he is not an expert on everything, and I am satisfied that he does not really understand this rating question. He does not understand that the tenant in future will have to pay the whole rent all along the line at the end of six months. The Clause means that the landlords in future will get thousands of pounds up and down the British Isles, and it should therefore be deleted.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, Noes, 102.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, at the end, to insert:

(3) Paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Act of 1920 shall have effect as if the words 'an amount not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the net rent'


there were substituted the words 'such an amount, not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the net rent as may be agreed, or as may, on the application of the landlord or the tenant, be determined by the county court to be fair and reasonable, having regard to such liability:
Provided that the court may at any time, on a complaint from a tenant that the said liability is not being properly discharged, review such determination.'
As the laws stands, the proprietor of a controlled house is permitted to charge 25 per cent. of the net rent if he is responsible for the repairs whether he undertakes the repairs or not. Where he is responsible for only part of the repairs, he is only permitted to get the increase in his rent as fixed by the county court or by agreement. That is to say the apportionment of the 25 per cent. as between the landlord and the tenant has to be settled by the court. Where, however, the landlord is responsible for all the repairs, he is permitted to receive 25 per cent. There has never been any proof demanded from the landlord that he has, since 1920. or any material year, spent the 25 per cent. or any portion of it on repairs. He gets the 25 per cent. year after year whether he makes the repairs or not. As we have repeatedly emphasised in various stages of this Measure, there has been since 1920 a material decrease in the cost of repairs, and if it were right that the 25 per cent. should be the amount allowed in 1920, it is clear now that the landlord would be getting an excessive increase if he were to have 15 per cent. instead of 25 per cent.
What happens in other walks of life? When a trader or a merchant sells rotten food or contaminated fish or meat to the detriment of the public health, the local authority se ads inspectors to seize the contaminated food, and then the merchant is fined in court under the Foods and Drugs Act. He may be fined £20 or three months for the first offence, and £50 or three months for the second offence. The fine can go up to £100, and his stock is destroyed without compensation. His assistant is also rendered liable to penalties. The proprietor of house property, however, who sells diseased property for which he has been permitted to charge an increase of 25 per cent. on the net rent per annum for making repairs, and who does not carry them out to the detriment of the health of the occupants, he is not prosecuted.

In the last resort, when the local authority tells him that he must do structural repairs or his property will fall about the ears of the tenants, he is given 8 per cent. of his capital expenditure for the structural repairs which he has been compelled to make. If he then goes through an elaborate process of sub-letting parts of his house, he gets another 15 per cent. for his trouble.

The Solicitor-General: He does not get the 8 per cent. for structural repairs, but only for structural alterations.

Mr. Johnston: That is the sort of thing we have been up against in discussing this Bill. I should have said structural alterations when I said structural repairs, but everybody in the House, including the hon. and learned Gentleman, knew what I meant. The landlord gets an allowance of 8 per cent. of the capital expenditure on structural alterations which he is compelled to make as the result of the prolonged deterioration of the property arising frequently because he has not done the repairs for which he is paid 25 per cent.
We are simply saying in the Amendment that if a tenant can allege that repairs are not being done for which the landlord is taking 25 per cent. from him, and if he goes to the county court and proves his case, it shall be at the option of the court to say that the landlord shall not get the 25 per cent., but only such sum as the court awards, if any. Is there anything unreasonable or unjust about that? Is there anything non-moral about it We are acting in the highest interests of public morality, of honest dealing, and of the fulfilment of contract in endeavouring to stop what is the wholesale public robbery of hundreds of thousands of poor tenants through this permitted increase of 25 per cent. for repairs which are not done.

9.5 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I do not propose to make a long statement on this Amendment, as I understand that it is the general desire that we should proceed to the Third Reading as soon as we reasonably can, and that a number of hon. Members desire to speak then. The Amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman has explained very fairly from his point of view, suggests in regard to the rent that the landlord and tenant might agree upon a


lesser sum than is already specified in the Act, and that if they are unable to agree either of them could apply to the county court judge, who would then have cast upon him the duty of assessing what, in the terms of the Clause, is a fair and reasonable rent. The first observation I desire to make—I do not complain that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention it, but I think it ought to be stated—is that already there is a remedy, and I think a considerable remedy, in the Rent Acts and the Housing Acts—the power to ensure that houses are kept in a proper state of repair.
Under the Rent Acts a tenant can apply to his local authority for a certificate that his house is not in a reasonable state of repair, and Amendments are being made in the law by this Bill with the object of making it easier for a tenant to obtain such a certificate. When that certificate has been obtained the tenant can serve a copy of it upon the landlord, and can then withhold the whole of the permitted increase in rent until the necessary repairs have been executed. I feel there will be considerable danger, as I think hon. Members opposite will appreciate, if we begin to permit an agreement to be made between landlord and tenant in this respect. I can understand the position of a tenant in cases of this kind; he would endeavour to come to some agreement with the landlord and—I will not put it higher—that might tend to encourage the keeping of houses in a state of disrepair. Though I will not develop the point further, a good deal could be said upon that aspect of the matter.
Finally, I would say that this Amendment goes back to a proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has urged on many occasions: it casts upon the county court judge the duty, which we on this side of the House do not think ought to be put upon him, of saying what is a fair and reasonable rent. That is a different matter from the duty of making an apportionment. It would cast upon the judge the duty of saying what is a fair and reasonable rent, and that is suggesting a kind of tenancy court, something which I know the right hon. Gentleman believes in but to which we on this side of the House are opposed. For all those three reasons I do not advise the House to accept this Amendment, and I hope that after this brief explanation—I could

have made it longer had I not had regard to the business before us—I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I do not think the Minister altogether realises the immense amount of resentment which is caused by the operation of this provision in the Act of 1920. If a tenant is told that his rent is to be increased by a certain arbitrary amount he may take it as a stroke of fate, as an act of God, but if he is told that he has to pay more rent because the landlord is liable for repairs, although he knows that his landlord has not done any repairs, he regards it more as a stroke of fraud, and it does create an immense amount of ill-feeling. The Minister suggested that the matter could be cured by serving a non-repair notice and holding the rent in suspense. I ask him to consider this case. I hope there are still cases in which a landlord does keep the house in a fair state of repair, and in that case it may very well be that in a given year he has not had to spend anything at all, and no tenant could then ask for a certificate of non-repair, but that is no reason why a landlord who has not had to spend anything whatever, or only a negligible sum, should still be entitled to an increase of 25 per cent. It seems to me that the Minister has not met the point which is behind this Amendment. After all, the Amendment seeks to do only what is fair. There must be some tribunal to decide, and in this case I cannot see anything except the county court as a convenient tribunal. For those reasons I hope the House will see fit to support the Amendment.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Frankel: I rise to address the House for a few moments in support of this Amendment in view of the very unsatisfactory and inadequate reply to it from the Minister. He seems to have missed the real point of the Amendment. All the things which he said against the Amendment would apply with equal force to the Act of 1920, which deals with cases in which the repairs have to be done partly by the owner and partly by the tenant. I have noticed no attempt by the right hon. Gentleman to remove that provision from that Act. The power of the county court to apportion the amount of the extra rent which shall be paid by the tenant where repairs are done partly by


the tenant and partly by the landlord, remains, and I have not heard that there has been any difficulty about carrying out that provision of the law. If there had been any difficulties we ought to have heard of them. The question before us is of great importance to hundreds of thousands of tenants. When replying to previous Amendments the right hon. Gentleman has referred to differences of principle between the two sides of the House. We on this side do believe in a more or less permanent control of rents, and also believe that there ought to be rent courts, and though there are divisions between us on those matters, still, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are entitled to hold our views and he has asked us to respect his. But are there any differences of principle with regard to fraud? Are there any differences between us on the question whether it is fair for people to take money and then not do the things for which they have had the money?
The law does not say that it is 25 per cent, for repairs, it is 25 per cent. above the pre-war cost of repairs, a very different thing. Surely it will be admitted that before the War the landlord made allowance in the rent for having to do some repairs. The allowance which the House gave to landlords was 25 per cent. above pre-war cost of repairs, based upon the supposed increase in the cost of repairs after the War. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment made the point that the 25 per cent. could have been criticised at any time between 1920 and now, as to whether it was a proper sum to be allowed.
The Minister who replied on this Amendment has missed another point which I think is fundamental. He referred to the 40 per cent. which the medical officer of health can certify need not be paid by a tenant after his house is in a certain state of disrepair. Are the Minister of Health and the House to say that we have to wait until irreparable damage has been done to houses before anything can be done about it? Is this House to say that what is happening at the present moment must be allowed to continue? My own constituency is not a bright example of the way in which houses are kept in repair by landlords. The borough council issues scores of summonses month after month against landlords and hundreds of notices under the Public Health Acts. That is an

answer in regard to the 25 per cent. extra which we are allowing to landlords, who wait until their houses are so bad that they come under the Public Health Act. If the houses are to wait until then, why should 25 per cent. extra be paid to the landlord during the intervening years? Many hon. Members well know that before a house can be put into repair or into partial repair under the Public Health Act it has to be in a very sad state.
Certain things are also allowed under the Public Health Act. You cannot put a house into a proper state of repair under those Acts as repair was visualised in regard to the 25 per cent. increase. We all know of the great delays which are necessarily caused to-day under the Public Health Act before a house can be put into anything like habitable condition, not to say proper repair, yet the right hon. Gentleman says that the answer to our Amendment is that the tenants can report to the surveyor when their houses become so bad as to be more or less uninhabitable. Is that argument an answer to our Amendment? I could have understood it if the right hon. Gentleman had said: "I do not like the drafting of your Amendment, but I agree in principle that landlords should not be able to do as they are doing in many constituencies, and all over industrial England, taking 25 per cent. for this purpose, not during one year but over many years, and doing nothing for it."
There is some repercussion upon the standard of life of the people because hundreds of thousands of tenants who like to live decently repair their houses themselves out of money that should be spent on food. The landlords know that and on many occasions definitely play upon it. Even when he proposes to do anything, he asks the tenant to contribute a portion of the cost of doing what he ought to do out of his 25 per cent. Before it is too late, and before it goes out to the public of this country that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is that we must wait until the houses are so bad that they can claim 40 per cent., something should be done from the benches opposite to meet the legitimate claim put forward in the Amendment.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I have listened very attentively to the arguments advanced by the Minister of Health for the retention of the


25 per cent. The basis of his argument seemed to be an assumption that repairs were being carried out to-day in a satisfactory manner. He should know, if he knows his own constituency, that, good as that constituency may be, the landlords are not keeping the houses in that state of repair that the Bill requires. I know people in my own constituency living in houses the landlords of which will not spend a penny upon repairs or even upon redecoration. In some cases the landlord, if he is approached by the tenant, will say "I am prepared to meet you in this regard. I will give you the paint and the paper, but you must be responsible for the labour." That kind of thing was not envisaged when the 25 per cent. was originally enacted. In view of such facts, I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not be prepared to meet us in this matter.
We are being asked to condone what is in every respect nothing other than a fraud. Tenants are being defrauded because the landlords are not keeping the houses up to the standard required. It is all very well to say that there is the redress of going to the sanitary authority and asking the sanitary inspector to make an inspection. The sanitary inspector will say: "Is the roof all right? Does it leak? Are the drains all right, or are they out of order?" Those are the two main matters in which the sanitary inspectors will be interested, but there are other things equally important pertaining to house property. Tenants pay rent which they are compelled to pay to-day and they are entitled to far better accommodation than is supplied by the average landlord. I know of many houses in which tenants have resided for over 20 years and the landlords of which have in no sense been responsible for the repairs. The tenants have had to meet the cost out of their own pockets. Surely, after all the arguments that have been advanced during the last two days, the right hon. Gentleman should be prepared to meet us in this matter. We are not asking for anything unreasonable. We suggest that county court judges should have an opportunity of giving a decision in respect of the conduct of the landlord. I wholeheartedly support the Amendment.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Logan: The Bill is very important in its effects upon the large number of people living in small dwellings in Liverpool. Our hospitals are filled because of the bad accommodation which prevails. If landlords receive rents and do not do the repairs, and ill health follows as a consequence, the city suffers. I am proud to say that the majority of landlords in Liverpool are not bad landlords in this respect. They do the repairs because it is a good investment; it pays them well to see that the houses are kept in proper condition. But for a long time we have had in that city a very great number of speculative landlords who buy up this kind of property and spend no money on it, but get for themselves the whole benefit of this 25 per cent. It is not fair, and such landlords are a curse. Anyone who knows Liverpool with its slums ought to agree to the proposition made in this Amendment.
I am not saying a word against the owners of properties which are kept in fair condition, where the landlords want only a fair return on their capital, but there is no hope whatever from the type of landlord who does not care a tinker's curse about the condition of the people as long as he draws the rent. I am anxious that there should be some tribunal before which such a landlord must appear, instead of robbing the poverty-stricken people of Liverpool who are his tenants and who are paying excessive rents. This is a grievance which demands some redress. The Minister of Health knows the conditions perfectly well, because he has visited our great city and seen the wonderful improvements that the Housing Director has made for the welfare of the people: but we have thousands and thousands of houses with the bad conditions that I have described and we are not able to do anything in the matter. Surely from the point of view of health the Minister ought to be able to say, "This is something which should be redressed." We feel that a county court judge who is aware of the rotten conditions there would be able to deal effectively with a slum landlord.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 143.

Division No. 186.]
AYES.
[8.50 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Baxter, A. Beverley
Burghley, Lord


Albery, Sir Irving
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Bernays, R. H.
Butcher, H. W.


Apsley, Lord
Bossom, A. C.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Assheton, R.
Boulton, W. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)'


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Channon, H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Balniel, Lord
Bull, B. B.
Clarry, Sir Reginald




Clydesdale, Marquess of
Joel, D. J. B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rowlands, G.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Keeling, E. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Latham, Sir P.
Samuel, M. R. A.


De la Bère, R.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandys, E. D.


Denville, Alfred
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Selley, H. R.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lipson, D. L.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Ellis, Sir G.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Loftus, P. C.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lyons, A. M.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Findlay, Sir E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Fleming, E. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Furness, S. N.
McKie, J. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Gluekstein, L. H.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tate, Mavis C.


Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Markham, S. F.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Train, Sir J.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hannah, I. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Waterhouss, Captain C.


Harbord, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Hartington, Marquess of
Munro, P.
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, Sir G.
Nall, Sir J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wintarton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Heilgare, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wise, A. R.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Peake, O.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hepworth, J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Holdsworth, H.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wood Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Holmes, J. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wright, Wing-Contmander J. A. C.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Parlok)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)



Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hutchinson, G. C.
Renter, J. R.
Major Sir James Edmondson


Intkip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
and Major Herbert.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Adamson, W. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Griffiths, G, A. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapal)
Ridley, G.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Bevan, A.
Hills, A. (Ponttfract)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Chater, D.
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Summerskill, Edith


Dalton, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lathan, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Tomlinson, G.


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Leonard, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Evans, D. O (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mandar, G. le M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.



Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.

Division No. 187.]
AYES.
[9.30 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Amman, C. G.
Griffith, F Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, J. H (Whiteshapel)
Ridley, G.


Barr, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontsfract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Holdsworth, H.
Seely. Sir H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Hollins, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Chater, D.
Hopkin, D.
Silverman, S. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Jagger, J.
Simpson, F. B.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
John, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Summerskill, Edith


Dalton, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Tomlinson, G.


Day, H.
Lathan, G.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leach, W.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
Leonard, W.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Logan, D. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Frankel, D.
Mander, G. le M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.



Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Charleton.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.





NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Allen, Col. J. Sandemen (B'knhead)
Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencestar)


Apsley, Lord
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, P.


Assheton, R.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Nall, Sir J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Hannah, I. C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Harbord, A.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Balniel, Lord
Hartington, Marquess of
Peake, O.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Harvey, Sir G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Procter, Major H. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ramsbotham, H.


Boulton, W. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hepworth, J.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bull, B. B.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Remer, J. R.


Burghley, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Butcher, H. W.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Rowlands, G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Channon, H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Keeling, E. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sandys, E. D.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Selley, H. R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Latham, Sir P.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cross, R. H.
Lipson, D. L.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovll)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


De la Bère, R.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Denville, Alfred
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lyons, A. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Tate, Mavis C.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Ellis, Sir G.
McKie, J. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Train, Sir J.


Evans, Cant. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Magnay, T.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Findlay, Sir E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Fleming, E. L.
Markham, S. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.







Wayland, Sir W. A
Wise, A. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Wells, S. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.



Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, Ll.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Mr. Furness and Major Herbert.


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Minor and Consequential Amendments.)

9.37 P.m.

Mrs. Hardie: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, at the end, to insert:
Section 24 of the Act of 1920.—In Subsection (2) for the words 'ten pounds' there shall be substituted the words 'one hundred pounds.'
I am sure I may appeal to the Minister to recognise the gravity of these offences by providing a suitable penalty.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.38 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Lady has made a most convincing speech, which has moved me more than most of the other speeches in these discussions. I am anxious to meet, as far as I can, the views of the hon. Lady, and I should be prepared, if she would withdraw her Amendment and move another substituting double the amount, namely, £20, to accept such an Amendment. I may inform the House that the penalty of £100 was only contemplated in cases of a very serious character, and I think that generally speaking, if we double the amount that the hon. Lady now suggests, it will at any rate meet the sense of the House as regards the gravity of these offences.

Mrs. Hardie: I am very pleased that the Minister is prepared so far to accede to my request, and, in view of his proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 10, line 32, at the end, insert:
Section 14 of the Act of 2920.—In Subsection (2) for the words ten pounds 'there shall be substituted the words 'twenty pounds.' "—[Mrs. Hardie.]

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, at the end, to insert:
Section 25 of the Act of 5920.—In Subsection (3) for the words 'from the tenant if the tenancy had continued' there shall be substituted the words 'if he had been the tenant of the landlord.'

This Amendment and the other Amendment which stands in my name—in page 10, line 37, at the end, to insert:
Section 7 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923.—In Sub-section (1d) at the end there shall be added the words' Provided that such increase of so per cent. as aforesaid shall cease to have effect on the sub-tenant becoming the direct tenant of the landlord by reason of the tenant giving possession of the premises to the landlord or for any other reason,'
relate to the same subject, namely, the case where you have a landlord, a tenant, and a sub-tenant, and the relations of these three are determined by the Acts of 1920 and 1923. I understand that here also the Minister is prepared to make a concession. I understand, too, from some remarks that he made earlier to-day, that he was very much hurt by what I said about the possible effects of my remarks upon him, and I am sure he will realise that I am now making the most ample amends.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.40 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I think the hon. Gentleman has a very convincing case for some alteration of the law here. Section 7 of the Act of 1923 provides that, where the tenant of a controlled house sub-lets part of it, there is an extra permitted increase of rent, in the case of the sub-tenancy, of 10 per cent. of the net rent for the sub-let part. In these sub-lettings the landlord of the whole house is entitled to five per cent., and the sub-tenant takes the other five per cent. Supposing, however, that the tenant of the part that is being sub-let disappears, the whole of that 10 per cent. inures to the benefit of the landlord. The Amendment proposes that the landlord shall not obtain any of that advantage. I am not prepared to accept the Amendment in that form, but I have had drafted an alternative form which would leave the position exactly as it is to-day, that is to say, the disappearance of the intermediate tenant will result in the landlord getting what he was getting before, namely, his five per cent., no more and no less. If the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his


Amendment, I should be prepared to move an Amendment in the following terms:
In Section seven of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923, in Sub-section (1), at the end of the first paragraph, there shall be inserted the following proviso:
Provided that, if the interest of the tenant in the dwelling-house comprised in the tenancy is determined and the subtenant becomes the tenant of the landlord, then, notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the principal Act, which provides that in such circumstances a sub-tenant shall become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued, the maximum additional amount of rent allowed by this Sub-section to be charged in respect of the dwelling-house comprised in the subtenancy shall be reduced to five per cent. of the net rent.'

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: Before my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment, I should like to ask the Solicitor-General one question, the answer to which is unknown to any of us on this side of the House. When a landlord lets a house to a tenant, and the tenant in turn sub-lets a part of it, the sub-let tenant pays what I may call the tenant-in-chief 10 per cent. extra rent above the ordinary permitted increase. This 10 per cent. the major tenant has then to share with the landlord, half and half. If then the major tenant leaves the property, and the subtenant becomes the major tenant, the whole to per cent. in the past has inured to the landlord, and he has continued to stick to this 10 per cent. for reasons that are unknown to anyone here. And now the Solicitor-General, as I understand it, says, "We think it is right that he should not get this 10 per cent. for which he has done nothing, but we think he should get 5 per cent." Can the Solicitor-General explain why he should get either the 5 per cent. or the 10 per cent.?

9.46 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The gifts that the Government bring on this occasion do not seem to evoke a generous response. Ten per cent. was considered the figure which represented the extra wear and tear the landlord suffered through having two families instead of one. [Interruption.] I am sorry to think that that shaft might

have gone where I did not intend it to. It is not only families that suffer when duplicated, but houses that suffer when families are duplicated in them. That explains why the 10 per cent. increase was put in and why it was sub-divided, but the sub-tenant's holding in the case we are now contemplating is still controlled, and, therefore, the landlord can deal only with that part of the house which is not sublet, so that if he lets that part he has two families in the house and the same position in regard to wear and tear continues. There is no reason why he should be deprived of the 5 per cent. which he is now getting.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Barr: The Solicitor-General was good enough to pay a compliment to me by saying that I was most convincing. I am sorry that I cannot return the compliment. He has not convinced me. But as we are in the realm of compromise and time is pressing, while I do so with the utmost reluctance that this 5 per cent. should be given to all, I beg to withdraw the Amendment, in order that the other words shall be substituted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 10, line 37, at the end, to insert:
Section 7 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923.—In Sub-section (1), at the end of the first paragraph, there shall be inserted the following proviso:
'Provided that, if the interest of the tenant in the dwelling-house comprised in the tenancy is determined, and the subtenant becomes the tenant of the landlord, then, notwithstanding anything in Subsection (3) of Section 15 of the principal Act, which provides that in such circumstances a sub-tenant shall become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued, the maximum additional amount of rent allowed by this Subsection to be charged in respect of the dwelling-house comprised in the sub-tenancy shall be reduced to 5 per cent. of the net rent.'"—[The Solicitor-General.]

9.51 p.m.

Sir John Train: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot move that Amendment.

Sir J. Train: Am I not in order now in moving it?

Mr. Speaker: We have gone beyond the point at which the hon. Member's Amendment might have been moved.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, after "appears" to insert:
and in Sub-section (5), after the word 'proceedings,' there shall be inserted the words 'or on any application for that purpose made by the tenant or by the landlord.'
The House will be relieved to know that this is the last Amendment, and I hope the opportunity will not be lost of continuing the harmonious co-operation which has taken place up to now. It is a very harmless Amendment, and one which I hope will be readily accepted. The position is that class C houses are to be registered with the local authority, but, in the position which now exists, even though houses are wrongly registered as decontrolled, no one has the right to challenge the certificate except where proceedings are going on between the landlord and the tenant in court. The tenant whose house has been wrongly registered as decontrolled, has to accept that position unless the time arises when he is brought to court on some other ground or he himself has some ground of action against the landlord. The purpose of the Amendment is to give anyone, and the tenant principally, the right to apply to the county court to correct the register where, in fact, a house has been wrongly entered upon the register as decontrolled. It is a thing that will prevent a great deal of misunderstanding. It does not involve any of those violent controversies on principle that we have been debating this afternoon, and I hope that the Minister, on this last opportunity, at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour, will do something on the quite reasonable request we make in this Amendment.

9.53 P.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have had brought to my notice in my constituency a case where a landlord, believe of malice aforethought, had wrongly registered a house as decontrolled, and the tenant was placed in the anomalous position my hon. Friend has mentioned. That is something that should be put right.

9.54 P.m.

Sir K. Wood: I am glad to be able to accept this Amendment. I would point

out, however, that it permits the landlord, as well as the tenant, to apply to the court. This facilitates the administration of the law. I am glad to be able to finish this stage of the Bill by making a concession.

Amendment agreed to.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I beg formally to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

9.55 P.m.

Mr. Johnston: As one who has sat and listened to elaborate discussions on this Measure for many days I cannot help recalling one line in Tennyson's "Northern Farmer"—
Proputty, proputty, proputty—that's what I 'ears 'em saäy.
In almost every line and sentence of every statement made on behalf of the Government's Measure we have had "property, property" elevated in this House to a general principle. Human life and public health come nowhere, the necessities of the poor never considered, and injustices and anomalies in every street, in every village and in every city in the land are entirely cut out. We have offered substitutes, which, I believe, will be accepted and put into legislation by some Government or other before many years have passed. It is an amazing state of things. Nobody can justify a situation in which one half of the working-classes are protected from extraordinary exploitation in regard to rent, while the other half occupy houses which have been decontrolled and are subject to what are called the hazards of the competitive market. Nobody can justify that. I am certain that, if we put it to any hon. Member on the opposite benches, he would say that that is an indefensible position.
Almost at the last moment the right hon. Gentleman brings forward a Measure and says, "The old Acts are running out, and I must get a new Act. I cannot possibly permit decontrol of the other half of these working-class houses to take place at once. There would be riots and bloodshed, and I cannot do it. I will bring in a Bill and I will extend the present Act for four years, subject to this condition. I will take the class called the upper B class of tenants, paying a certain level of rent in Scotland and different rents in England and Wales,


and, on a date fixed in this Measure, in the autumn of this year, they will be decontrolled." That is the essence of this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made some very harsh strictures upon the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he forgot to add that we have been rather riled over this Measure from start to finish. We hold the view that the people for whom we specially claim to stand have not had a square deal.
The Bill was brought in at the last moment when Parliamentary exigencies made it inevitable that it should be sent upstairs to a Committee and not taken in Committee on the Floor of this House, so that the Amendments which we moved with a view to protecting small shopkeepers and the like did not receive publicity or adequate discussion. By the rules of the House, matters which are adequately discussed in Committee cannot again be discussed upon Report, because the Report stage is not a duplication of the Committee stage. This is a matter which vitally affects the lives of a number of poor people. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman is only throwing to the wolves the upper class B tenant in this Bill, but it is also true that he is perpetuating the absolute absence of any control or protection for half of the existing tenants in this country. Half of them are to have no protection whatever.
Against these anomalies and injustices, which nobody attempts to defend, and least of all, to his credit, the right hon. Gentleman himself, we have offered, while there is yet time, the setting up of tenancy courts such as have worked satisfactorily in other parts of Europe for 15 or 20 years, as in Denmark, for example. We say, bring in every tenant. Every dispute between landlord and tenant should go to a tenancy court, and if it could not be settled there by agreement, there should be the right of appeal to the county court. That was the alternative which we suggested to the present jumble of injustices and anomalies which are bound up with this Bill. We fear that in some parts of the land many worthy citizens presently tenanting upper B class houses will suffer injustices as a result of the Measure which the House is being asked to pass to-night.
We on these benches have done our

utmost, within the rules of Parliamentary procedure, on Second Reading, on the Committee stage and on the Report stage, to persuade the majority of the Members of this House that the present course which they are taking is wrong, that it reeks with injustices, and that there are other and alternative methods which are better. We have this further handicap. If we do not get something in the nature of Clause 1 in this Bill, all control will stop this year. If all control were to be stopped this summer, then, admittedly, very serious hardships would fall upon hundreds of thousands of poor C class tenants. Because, ingeniously in this Bill, continued protection for the C class tenant is mixed up with this new injustice to the upper B class tenant and we are placed in the unfortunate position that, while we would be willing to do what we could to amend and to improve the Bill, we cannot take responsibility, on the Third Reading, of voting against a Measure which, whatever defects it may possess, still gives continued protection to the lower class C tenant. While criticising and intending to continue to criticise this kind of legislation, and all that it means, we do not feel that we can go into the Division Lobby and vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

10.5 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his unfailing good temper in getting the Bill through its final stages. We might describe the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague, the Solicitor-General, as the two smiling Ministers. Nothing could disturb or take that smile from their faces. The more they were attacked or criticised the more pleased they seemed to be. It is a characteristic peculiar to both of them, and I think the smooth passage of the Bill through the Report stage, and the comparatively quick time occupied in getting through a large number of Clauses and Amendments, is due to that charm of manner which is associated with them.
I suppose we ought to be thankful for small mercies. We have to admit that the Bill does continue in control the class C houses—something like 4,500,000 houses. I am naturally of a critical nature, and I regret that so far as London and the rural areas are concerned the Bill does not extend its protection to a larger section of tenants. I am sorry that the


Amendment dealing with agricultural labourers in 3s. houses could not be accepted. That is a problem which sooner or later will have to be faced. There will come a time, unless the right hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to carry out his big campaign of rural housing, when that protection will have to be given to that most deserving section of the community, the agricultural labourers. Undoubtedly, the agriculturist leaves the country for the town because in the town he gets that freedom and security for his home which he lacks in the country.
In regard to the B class houses I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee are under-rating the problem in the South of England. I am informed that in the Midlands and the North the supply has more or less met the demand, but it has certainly not done so in London. Houses suitable for that particular section of the community are mainly for sale. The problem of the supply of houses to let is as difficult and urgent as before. Not only in London but in many of the seaside towns in the South the black-coated worker knows that as soon as control is taken off he will be more or less at the mercy of the landlord. If he has a good landlord, well and good, but the bad landlord will take advantage of his position. The letter which I read shows that in thousands of homes at the present time there is real alarm as to the future; uncertainty whether when the protection is taken off their rents will be raised so high that they will be beyond their pockets.
There is the problem of the household with large families. The overcrowding is worse and the pressure is greatest where there are large families. The man with a large family has the greatest difficulty in finding the kind of house he wants at a rent within the compass of his pocket. I suspect that if the overcrowding law is to be enforced many householders with large families will find that this decontrol of a large section of B property will hit them particularly hard.
I am not quite satisfied that the small shopkeeper will not suffer. I mean particularly the little men at the corner of the street, so common in London, who fulfil a very useful purpose. They have a very hard struggle to make both ends

meet. They have to face the competition of the co-operative stores, the multiple shops and the departmental stores, and will experience much difficulty if their rents under this decontrol are increased. They fulfil a useful service, and I am sorry the Bill does not cover them, because they will suffer under the decontrol section of the Bill.
This is the last stage of the Bill, and we are going to give the right hon. Gentleman his Third Reading without a Division. We shall part for the Easter holidays after giving him that satisfaction. I hope that we may be wrong as prophets of woe and that the hardships will not be so great as we anticipate.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Hutchinson: I should not have ventured to intervene in the Debate had it not been for the fact that the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) was good enough to make certain observations upon conditions which he asserted existed in my constituency. Unfortunately, I had been called out of the Chamber when he made his speech, but I should like to tell the hon. Member that the conditions to which I understand that he referred are by no means so widespread as he led the House to suppose. It is perfectly true that in all the outer suburban districts of London there are a certain number of the upper category of B class houses, with which this Bill is so much concerned; but the number of those houses, certainly in my constituency, is very much less than the hon. Member led the House to suppose, and less than the hon. Baronet who has just spoken, suggested. In the outer suburb districts of London I suppose the great majority of the houses which fall within the category of £35 to £40 rate-able value, have never been controlled houses at all.
When we come to deal with this matter it is very largely a question of the balance of hardship. It is a mistake to approach the question of hardship from the standpoint that the landlords of these B class houses are persons in a substantial position of life. That is not so. We have to judge these matters, when we weigh up the question of hardship, from the sort of material which hon. Members obtain from their constituencies. I have received a great many representations about this Bill from my constituents, but


I have received far more representations of hardship from landlords than I have received from tenants. Many of the landlords of these particulars classes of houses are persons who own perhaps two or three houses, in which their life savings have been invested. To-day they desire to change their tenants, perhaps because from time to time the tenants have taken advantage of their position, or perhaps because they feel that the dwellings are no longer suitable for single private dwellings and wish to turn them into flats. If they are permitted to do this, as they will be under the Bill, it will have the effect of increasing the supply of the lower-rented class of house for which there is undoubtedly a substantial demand.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) referred in a somewhat patronising manner to the class of tenants who occupy property of this nature. I can assure him that his patronising attitude will not be appreciated by them. He told the House that they had no adequate means of making their wishes known. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that there are such organisations as ratepayers' associations, tenants' associations, residents' associations and so on, and I am bound to say that while the Bill has been before the House I cannot recall that I have received any representation from any one of these associations against it. One has to approach this matter from the standpoint of trying to balance hardships. Undoubtedly, there will be hardship on both sides, but it is because I feel that the right hon. Gentleman in this instance has done his best to balance the hardships fairly as between landlords and tenants that I shall vote for the Bill.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Ritson: I can assure the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that the compliments which have been paid to the Minister of Health are wasted. He has been complimented again and again on his good temper. That is the most dangerous attribute of the right hon. Gentleman. A wasp is beautiful to look at, but he has a sting in his tail, and when the Minister of Health smiles I begin to wonder what it means. Behind his smile he can work subtly and carry out his part—that is what he is there for. When I was a younger man and had a small family, and very little of anything, a friend presented one of my

youngsters with a doll loaded with lead, so that no matter which way you hit it, it turned up smiling. The Minister reminds me of that sort of doll. No matter what we did, we could not offend him. In fact, in Committee he paralysed Members of his own side. He refused to allow them to take part on any question in Committee. He reminded me of a weasel fascinating a hare. The only difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the weasel is that the weasel went to work and did his job, while the Minister in Committee sat still and looked. We tried to see if we could move the ladies on the Committee; but no. We tried to make the Scottish Members on the Committee speak, but not a word, and, being born on the Border, I was much disappointed. We tried to get the hon. Member for Cathcart (Sir J. Train) to move, and on one occasion he did move. I felt that there was some information to be obtained from him, because he is a builder, but he carried his knowledge with dignity.
The Minister knows as well as any hon. Member that a new class of landlord has arisen in the industrial areas. The sort of landlords of whom the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) spoke have gone; the landlords are a changed race, and their religion and their souls have gone. In Sunderland, which is a very densely populated area, landlords buy up large houses, cram people into them and extort rents which are scandalous. These landlords buy up houses, and tell the people living in them that if they cannot buy them they must get out, and then they re-let the houses to other tenants at higher rents. In the Committee we pleaded with the Minister on this matter, but he would not give way. I do not blame him, because his party is pledged to support the landlord class. We pleaded for the small shopkeepers. The Minister knows, as the hon. Baronet for South-West Bethnal Green said, that the small shopkeeper is the person who has the last penny extracted from him. Hon. Members opposite claim that they are supporters of the small shopkeepers. They claim that they are the supporters of wounded soldiers and sailors. I could give scores of cases where disabled soldiers and sailors, having pensions of 5s. or 10s. a week, and miners and shipyard workers who have been afflicted mentally or physically and have a little compensation, have taken small shops to help them to get


through life. Let me tell the Minister, who is also Minister for Propaganda, I understand, that every fried-fish shop is worth a thousand votes at any time to the Conservative party. I will not tell him why. We pleaded for the small shopkeepers, who are being driven not only out of their shops and their houses above the shops, but out of business. This Bill has been got through very cleverly. It has been rushed through at a time when the Minister knew that he had us in a cleft stick. The Minister came to us at a time when he could say, "The clock is ticking on and if you do not accept this Bill, there will be decontrol of all the houses."
We have had to agree, in the interests of people who are already suffering, to accept this Bill on its Third Reading without a Division, but we ought not to do so without a protest. The Minister objected to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) and suggested that one who was wearing the cloth of my hon. Friend ought to have been kindlier in his references. I agree that the Minister is more in need of prayers than of abuse, but I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge has soul enough and forgiveness enough to be willing to forgive even the right hon. Gentleman and to pray for him when the time comes. But I can assure the Minister that we felt it very keenly in Committee upstairs, that the Minister kept his team in hand and never allowed them even to smile. It was like addressing Madam Tussauds waxworks—not a figure moved and it made us very wroth. Now we have come to the hour of compliments, but I have no compliments to offer. I rather like the Minister's smile in some ways, but I know its effectiveness against me and when I see it I know that I am being destroyed.
I would rather have his fist against my nose than his hand upon my shoulder. I am convinced that the Government came to the conclusion that if they dealt with these class B houses it would not affect them politically. I do not think they knew their job in that case because I am convinced that when this begins to operate, it will operate on our side politically, but I would rather that it did not, than see poor tenants being punished. The Minister and those associated with

him do not understand the conditions in which people are being herded together. It does not matter whether you call these houses class A, or class B, or class C, or what date you fix for decontrol. The people are terrified of the date of decontrol. We have had instances from Birmingham of rents having been raised from 6s. 6d. to 25s. We cannot go as far as that in the North of England, but as regards sheer hardship we can go even further. For a man who is a miner or who is unemployed to pay 15s. a week is far harder than it is for the man with £3 or £4 a week to pay 25s. While food prices have been rising, rents have risen beyond common decency. We find men getting 32s. a week and having to pay 15s. a week in rent, and yet the Minister asks that families should be increased. It is a tragedy.
I am the father of a large family and I have never been ashamed of it. I believe it is the happiest state that any man can enjoy, to be in health and strength and have a happy family around him. It is what has made England. But when a man has to pay 15s. a week out of a wage of 30s. there is a danger. He may be sheltered but he lacks food and what is to happen to the rising generation brought up under those conditions? In towns like my own, where cases of tuberculosis and mental deficiency are rising to six per thousand one is able to realise the direct effect of all this upon the physique and the mental condition of the people. The mental strain imposed on the fathers and mothers of families by the present conditions is having its effect and the Government ought to have considered the effect on the purchasing power of people of raising these rents. I have no objection as a legislator, to complimenting the Minister, but politically I think he has done a bad day's work against the hardest crushed people in this country to-day, the rent payers struggling against the great octopuses and dragons that are ready to take their full weight out of the poorest of the poor.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I have sat through the Second Reading Committee and Report stages of this Bill without saying a word, and I feel that I cannot let the Bill go without a few remarks on its last stage. I have sat through all these different stages, not because I was dragooned into doing so by my right hon. Friend the Minister


of Health, but because I realised that we were acting under a time limit and that hon. Members opposite were talking so much that if we too talked, we should lose the Bill. On the Third Reading it is usual to discuss, I understand, what is in the Bill, but so far, in the last two days on the Report stage, we seem to have discussed almost entirely what is not in the Bill. What is in the Bill is, I think, of value to the tenants of this country, in that, first of all, it continues to control of C class houses, notwithstanding change of tenancy, brings under control, notwithstanding change of tenancy, lower B class houses which up till now have gone out of control on change of tenancy, and also in the case of A and B class houses, where they are let to two or more tenants, each tenancy remains controlled as long as one of the tenancies is controlled. That, I think, is a good thing from the point of view of the tenant.
The only decontrol that is effected in the Bill is in the upper range of B class houses, that is to say, those rated at between £35 and £45, and the reason for this has been given in the reports of both the Marley and Ridley Committees, but mainly in the latter, on which the Government have recommended this Bill to the House. I think that when we set up a committee which investigates thoroughly a difficult question like this, it is only right that its recommendations should be accepted, unless there are major reasons against such a course. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) earlier to-day tried to make out that, in spite of the fact that many B class houses have been built in the last few years, many of them have been demolished. That may be true, but nevertheless the Ridley Committee, on page 16 of its report, brings out the fact that whereas in 1931 there were 2,250,000 B class houses in England and Wales, in 1937 there were 2,950,000 such houses, so that notwithstanding the fact that many B class houses have been demolished, there has been a large increase in the number of these houses.

Mr. Ammon: The hon. Member has failed to recall that I quoted from the Ridley Committee's report, which said that there were bound to be fewer houses coming under control, and that that was largely through demolition.

Mr. Duncan: I quite agree. The hon. Member's argument tended to prove that

there was not an increased number of B class houses and that it would not be safe to decontrol the upper B class houses.

Mr. Ammon: In support of which I quoted the Ridley report.

Mr. Duncan: What I am saying is that as there has been a large increase in the number of B class houses, it is safe to decontrol the upper range. I have had only two letters from my constituency in London with regard to this Bill. One referred to the case of a B class house where there were two tenancies, each of £23, which would therefore remain controlled. The other referred to a case where there might be some hardship if the landlord demanded recovery of the premises in course of time. The hon. Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) referred to the shopkeepers. One effect of the programme of the Government has been to decrowd large areas which were overcrowded, with the result that the shopkeeper has a smaller public to buy from his shop. If the rent of a shop has some relation to the amount of business done, the tendency to-day, therefore, is for shopkeepers to have to pay a lower rent. That is true of my constituency.
With regard to consolidation of the legislation, a large number of tenants do not know whether they are being overcharged illegally. There is provision in the 1935 Act for local authorities to give advice to tenants as to whether they are being overcharged or not. No local authority, so far as I know, has yet set up a committee to give advice. One of the reasons against their doing that is that the rent Acts are so complicated that it is difficult for any local authority to give advice on the subject. If consolidation of the rent Acts took place, it would encourage local authorities to set up some form of organisation, either a committee or some legal body, so that tenants could be helped to get their rights in regard to rent. I congratulate my right hon. Friend in passing this difficult Measure through the House so successfully, and I wish him success in his future efforts to deal with this matter in other ways.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: I have listened with considerable interest and amazement to the speeches which have been delivered to-day particularly in regard to the administration of public health and the


sanitary conditions of some of the houses for which high rents are charged. However this Bill may affect that question, the indictments that have been made in the course of this Debate are a serious reflection on the local authorities and the inaction of the Ministry in not seeing that they do their duty in carrying out rigorously the Public Health Acts. I know that with the powers which local authorities already possess they could remedy almost every one of the evils which have been so vividly described from this side of the House, and I have been amazed by the revelations of insanitary and abominable housing conditions which we have had from hon. Members who are well acquainted with the local authorities of some of the big towns. An hon. Membehind me mentions Birmingham. That is a serious reflection upon Birmingham. Birmingham must have fallen considerably from grace, because when I first entered public life 30 years ago Birmingham was regarded as an example. Evidently the continued Tory rule in Birmingham has not been of the character which it ought to have been.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member will address me.

Mr. Quibell: I am sorry that I was led away by my hon. Friend, who is both older and has more experience than I have. Conditions in some of the houses are a serious reflection upon those charged with the duty of administering the Public Health Acts, and I hope that this Debate, if it does nothing else, will stimulate local authorities to do their duty. Coming to the rural workers, I was very sorry indeed that the Minister would not accept the new Clause which was moved with the object of protecting the man who occupies a house rented at less than 3s. a week. After what he said some time ago I thought he would have been most anxious to protect rural workers. But I did agree with part of his reply to the Debate, when he said that the solution of all these difficulties lies in the building of more and more houses. Everyone will recognise that many of the houses which have been described to us would not be occupied by anyone if other accommodation were available, and I can say this in excuse, partly, for the hesitation of local authorities to take action—that the houses are in such a

dilapidated state that they do not wish to encourage attempts to deal with them, but are more anxious to build new houses, because they will then be in a position to issue closing orders against unfit houses.
Reference has been made to the action of people who take houses in the countryside as week-end residences. I know from my experience—and it is something to reflect upon—that the only houses in the countryside which they cannot take are the tied houses. That is a curious position, but it is so. In many cases the tied house is the only safe home for the agricultural worker. In some villages near to large industrial towns where men earn good wages there would not be any houses left for the agricultural labourers if it were not for the tied houses, because the men from the towns can afford to take the houses in the villages at rents which no agricultural labourer can afford to pay. From that point of view I regard the action of the Minister in not affording more protection to the workers in the countryside as a bad feature of the Bill.
As other speakers from this side have said, I do not think the Minister is giving us very much in this Bill. He is always full of good intentions, he always gives us a smile, and treats us very courteously, but we get nothing out of him. With the exception of what happened in the last 15 minutes on the Report stage there has not been one single concession during the whole course of to-day's proceedings. I would only say in conclusion that I hope that some of the ill-effects of this Measure which have been prophesied from this side of the House, as well, perhaps, as from the other side of the House, will not be realised, and that the worst features of housing conditions which have been described to us will be remedied by the Department and by the public health officers of local authorities, ridding Liverpool, Birmingham and other places of the shocking conditions of which we have been told.

10.45 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I do not want to keep the House unnecessarily, but I wish to ask the Minister one question. He will remember that one of the recommendations of the Ridley Committee was that the Minister should disseminate a knowledge of the Acts. Everyone who knows the conditions will understand that one of the


tragedies is that people do not really know their rights under the Acts. I have come to the conclusion that it is not altogether practical to say that a town clerk or a clerk to a local authority should be able to give that knowledge. I believe that the only practical way in which it can be done is to have the information printed and purchasable for a very small sum by anyone who applies for it. I believe that that would soon become known all over the country and that it is a thoroughly practical suggestion which would enable both landlords and tenants to know their rights under the Acts. I would ask the Minister whether he could consider adopting that suggestion.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have been particularly interested in the progress of this Measure, which started upon its journey just before I came to this House. Housing questions, and particularly rent restrictions, occupied a good deal of time in the local authority with which I was connected, and I have therefore watched the passing of the Bill in the hope that we should sooner or later get something from the Minister which would be of real assistance to the people whom I am particularly anxious to help. I have heard several times to-day, and it has been repeated on the Third Reading, that the best that could be said about the Bill by its supporters is that it balances hardships, and that in view of the large number of people who live in houses in this country only 450,000 are to be affected. It is obvious that if you begin by suggesting that the Bill applies only to a few houses, that is of necessity detrimental; otherwise there would be no necessity to point out that it affected only a few. Wherever a balance of hardships has been considered, there has always been the assumption that the tenants can stand a bit more hardship and the landlords can get the benefit.
What I do not like about the Bill, and what we have so far failed to shake the Minister on, is that it is based upon the Ridley Report, to which the Minister has stuck tenaciously. The justification for the Measure is that the majority report of the committee decided that it was desirable. That may be the only justification. I want to examine for a moment the constitution of the Ridley Committee in relation to the people with whom I am particularly concerned, before I con-

sider that a sufficient ground for legislation which is to affect so many people. The best part of the Bill, and the only part worth voting for—I could vote for it without voting for any other part—is the first few lines, in which control of the C class house is continued. The price we are paying for all the iniquities which remain is to retain that control. The hon. Lady who has just addressed the House suggested that information with regard to the Acts should be widespread, and she suggested the sending out of a circular. Much as I desire information to be broadcast there is so much danger in it that I question the advisability of doing so. There are many anomalies in rent restrictions, and this Measure will increase them. If you sent out the information, what would apply to one tenant in No. 29 would not apply to another tenant in No. 31. The hon. Lady is screwing up her face. The probabilities are that she has not had dealings with tenants who are interested in rent.

Mrs. Tate: Will the hon. Gentleman speak about what he knows? Perhaps he forgets that for nearly four years I represented West Willesden, and the people there would tell you that I do know housing conditions. The hon. Member has no right whatever to assume that he knows more about the working classes than I do. I have worked in the East End for 15 years and I think that the hon. Member owes me an apology.

Mr. Tomlinson: If the hon. Lady imagines that I owe her an apology I will gladly apologise, but I was judging from the expression on her face when, commenting on a remark that she had made, I said she did not understand the point that I was putting to the House. What I am suggesting is that if the information on the Rent Restrictions Acts is sent out wholesale among tenants you are simply creating trouble; and, whereas she is seeking to relieve the town clerk and his staff, their work will be multiplied by the innumerable questions which will be raised seeking an interpretation of the literature sent out by the Minister. I would like the hon. Lady to understand that I am not in the habit of speaking about things about which I do not know at least something. I think sufficient proof has been given from this side of the House that the shortage of houses has not been overcome in the types of houses which are being decontrolled in this Bill.


Further, I do not accept the view that the ordinary law of supply and demand can be applied to houses. Nor do I think we shall ever get to the stage when control can be removed altogether and the landlords left to extract what they can under what are called market conditions. I do not think that human beings in those things which are essential to life—food, clothing and shelter, the last of which, in my opinion, is one of the most important items—ought to be subject either to profiteering on the one hand or to the law of supply and demand on the other.
I believe that the conclusions which have been drawn by the Government from the report and the suggestion they make that the housing shortage has been overcome are entirely wrong. The conclusions to which I came to were that it was necessary to re-control older houses, and these Acts should apply to all houses, and all should be brought under re-control. My very recent experience on a public assistance committee leaves me to protest against the Bill which, in my judgment, will lead in some instances that I know to the public assistance committee paying the increases of rent which will be called for under this Bill. There are many people in Lancashire at this moment who are living in houses which will come within this category, and who are obliged to apply to the public assistance committee; and where that obtains, as it does in many cases, the public assistance committee will simply be paying the increase, and we shall have been legislating, not on behalf of the tenant, but on behalf of the landlord. This is a Bill, not in the interests of the tenants, but a landlords' Bill.
I suggest that the Minister in this Measure is, at any rate as regards the 450,000 houses, throwing away one of the strongest means for getting those reasonable repairs and decorations of which we have heard so much. If rent control goes, and it is to go with regard to these houses, one of the best means of enforcing repairs to property goes with it. Again I speak from a little experience. I know the Minister will say that we still have the Public Health Act, but the Clauses of the Rent Restrictions Act have been of more assistance than many sanitary inspectors, and a refusal to pay rent on the ground of non-fulfilment of contract has often suc-

ceeded where the sanitary inspector has failed. As an inducement to the landlord to keep his property in decent repair, the Rent Restrictions Act should be extended rather than repealed—for it is the intention of the Government at some not far distant date to repeal it altogether. While I welcome the continuance of the control which is essential in the case of class C houses, I deplore the tendency in other parts of the Bill to do the things which we consider ought not to be done, and the very great unwillingness of the Minister during the whole course of the Report stage to do the things which we think ought to be done.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: This Bill is more remarkable for what it does not do than for what it does, but we cannot, on the Third Reading, discuss the things that the Bill does not do, and I would like to say a few words about what it does. It is rather a pity that the Minister did not alter the Title of the Bill by inserting, in front of the word "Restrictions," the word "Diminishing," because in fact he is diminishing the restrictions that have existed up to the time of the passing of the Bill, and is taking away restrictions that have been in force in the case of 450,000 people whose houses will be decontrolled. When any Bill is before the House, I always ask myself what is going to be the net result of it, and I think that most people in the country will ask themselves that question with regard to this Measure. I hope they will judge the Minister and the Government on what is going to be the net result of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman takes credit, rightly up to a point, for the fact that he is continuing the control of these lower-rented houses, but his judgment in that regard, and his actions in that regard, have been induced rather by fear than by anything else. He knows that the agitation in the country would be so great if he dared to decontrol these houses that neither he nor his Government could stand up against it for long. But he asks himself how far he can go in giving greater opportunities to the landlords to exploit the tenants. He has come to the conclusion—I am sorry to say, I think rightly —that the lower middle class section of the community are so docile that they will support him on any condition. The net result of the Bill, with all the concessions that we have heard about, is that at least


450,000 who to-day are paying a controlled rent will next year be paying a decontrolled rent. The probability is that the landlords, as a consequence of the Act, will be able to exploit that class of tenants to the extent of many thousands of pounds. Houses now rented at 16s. will be able to go up to 20s., 24s., or even 30s.
The landlords will be doing very well, and the Minister no doubt will receive many votes of thanks from them, but I do not think he will receive many votes of thanks from the tenants who are to be dispossessed of the protection they now get. It is a pity he should have taken the opportunity now, when many of these people are so hard hit, to compel them to pay a higher rent than there is any justification for. I do not think that any body will thank any of the hon. Members who have spoken in support of this Bill to-night. I do not think that any of the constituents of the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) whose houses are rated at from £40 to £45 a year will thank them. They say that they have had no letters protesting against it. No doubt their constituents know them so well that they thought it would not be worth while wasting stamps in protesting. A new opportunity will be given now to the landlords to exploit a class of people who are already badly exploited.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: No vote is being taken on this Bill to-night, because it is said that if we vote against the Bill and defeat it we shall be defeating control. That argument would have applied equally on the Second Reading. If we did defeat the Bill it would be a good job, because there would be an election at once. It would not end control, but it would end this Government. It would be a good day for the country and the world in general. Sufficient has been said about the fact that close upon half a million people will be affected by increased rents. There is another side of the question which affects the tenant equally as much as increased rents. I think that the provisions of the Bill will hit London harder than they will hit other parts of the country. London, in the matter of rents, is always worse off than any other part of the country. We never seem to get the same treatment for London as is

given to places outside. Some people think that the Londoner is an easy-going individual and that nothing need be done for him. The tenant who is now under control has adequate protection. He is protected against eviction. Before he can be put out of his house, if he is, unfortunately, in arrears with his rent, or if the landlord wishes to obtain possession, application must be made to the court. The courts in my city of Glasgow have been a great buffer against evictions which would otherwise have taken place.
One of the worst features of the Bill is that half a million men, women and children may almost any day, be thrown into the street no matter what rent is paid. This is a vicious Measure, though it does not really affect my division greatly. Very few people in my division pay £35 a year in rent. Most of those who do are in large, old-fashioned houses which are almost beyond repair. Many of these houses are divided into small lodging-houses. With the improvement of trade this year the problem has become more acute in certain parts of the country than it was 12 months ago. I view the Bill with great apprehension because it is inevitable, as night follows day, that every other tenant will be bound to be in danger within a short time. It may be said, as I heard it said when I came into this House 16 years ago, that more houses are being built. Even with the best will in the world, there is no one who can really say that it will be possible to take off control for many years to come. Control is absolutely essential.
I view this Measure with misgiving and mistrust. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) is not present. It seems to me that women are becoming very thin-skinned. They must learn in this place to take criticism as men take it. There has never been a case put up for this Bill. All that we have heard, like King Charles's head, has been the Ridley Report and the Marley Report. On a former Rent Restrictions Bill, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and I acted as Tellers we carried a "duck egg" because we had no supporters. On that occasion it was all the Marley Report; now it is the Ridley Report. The Government must defend and justify its Bills on their merits. The Bill effects improvements in one or two respects, such as the rent book, but in


the main it foreshadows the coming of general decontrol. It is unjust to the tenant who has moved his family to a little better house, and made a sacrifice, in order to give them air, sunshine and better accommodation. Then the house is decontrolled. The Government tell people to get fit, to give their families a chance, to abolish overcrowding, and when the decent man and woman says: "I am going to use my income to get a bit better house for the benefit of my family," the Government decontrol the house and throw them to the mercy of social forces antagonistic to them. They have no right to punish people because they are decent to their wives and families. I hope the country will realise what has been done, that the half million people and their families will take note of it, and that the tenants of the lower-rented houses will take warning that unless they deal with the present Government at an early date and sweep them out, they will be in danger not only of having to pay higher rents but of losing their humble dwellings. I regret that we are not dividing against the Bill. I hope the Government will soon meet the fate they deserve.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: Having taken a fairly active part in the efforts to effect improvements in this mischievous Measure, I should like to make a few observations before it finally leaves the House. I have not been greatly impressed by the talk about the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman. As far as I can see, his sympathy in connection with this Measure is like the horror and disgust which the Prime Minister expressed in connection with another matter. It is a convenient formula behind which to veil the antisocial politics of the Government. There can be no doubt that the only important result of this Measure is the cost to the 500,000 families in this country. Their rents will be raised, and every demand that has been made from this side to introduce any kind of check upon increases in rent has been met by a non possumus attitude on the part of the Government. The Government are not willing to co-operate even in controlling to a slight degree the extra rents which will be the result of this Measure. It is idle to deny that rents will go up. Not a single witness on the side of the

owners before the Ridley Committee failed to agree that decontrol must result in an increase in rent, and over and above that there are all the other important social conditions which have gone with control of houses. The landlord in the case of these half million houses is to be permitted to distrain for rent without the leave of any court; he is to be permitted to evict on the expiry of the notice without the leave of any court; he is to be permitted to charge premiums for entrance, and he is permitted to perform all the other petty tyrannies which are making landlords hated among the working classes of this country.
It is now admitted that between hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite there is a deep cleavage on a fundamental principle, and it is at any rate a relief that that is now free forever from controversy. As far as we are concerned we regard the provision of houses as a public service, a matter in which society is interested, and on which control ought never to be utterly removed. Hon. Members opposite regard control as a most unwelcome necessity to be got rid of as soon as possible. I have no doubt that the electors of this country if they were able to take a decision would overwhelmingly decide that this was a public service far more than a private contract, and that it should be always so regarded. If there is any comfort to be derived from the Debates on this Measure it is that however much the Government and their supporters may seek to run away from it, however much they may seek to evade it, there is a conviction growing in the country and in the House that the day will never come when the Government, no matter what their political colour, will dare to allow control from these houses to be removed. After a quarter of a century's experience the thing has gone into the life of the nation and the advantages of control are now clear and so dear to large numbers of the community that we may regard it as certain that housing will be regarded as a social service and not one that will ever again be cast into the maelstrom of competitive contract, free from control. For that they will be able to claim no credit. It has been the constant pressure, for the greater part of this century, from those who share the political and social outlook of hon. Members on this side which has been responsible for


waking the public conscience and establishing a state of mind on the part of the public in which the control of the landlord in the interests of the community has become a permanent feature of our social life.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: There is a well-worn story of a man who fell out of a window on the twentieth floor of a building, and as he passed the lodger on the tenth floor murmured faintly, "I am all right so far." That is illustrative of those who, under this Bill, will still be in a more fortunate position than the 450,000 people to whom reference has been made. They are all right so far. The man who passed the tenth floor got to the bottom in the course of a few seconds, and the tenants of class C houses will themselves receive a bump in 1942. Let it be realised that that will be gradually appreciated by the tenants of this country. They will realise that just as it is the experience of their slightly better-off brethren now, so it will be their experience four years hence. Therefore, I very much regret that the Minister has supported this instalment of decontrol and has embodied in this Bill the obvious intention to secure complete decontrol within the next four years or so.
I wonder why he has persisted in that policy. There were various recommendations in the reports of the Ridley and Marley Committees, but I am afraid that the real factor which has led to the production of this Bill has been pressure from landlords, who have got hold of the Minister and told him in no uncertain terms that this sort of thing has got to stop, and that decontrol must take place at the earliest possible date. Because of that, the Minister, who is very amenable to pressure, no doubt said, "You leave it to me, my boys; I will see that it stops at the earliest opportunity." The right hon. Gentleman dare not try to stop control altogether straight away, so he starts on that unfortunate section of the community numbering some 450,000. The Minister knows very well, as do the representatives of the great dormitories around London where these B type houses exist, that this Bill will place a heavier burden on thousands of struggling people around the Metropolis and elsewhere. Some hon. Members have said that they have had no communications from their constituents on this matter, but it will not be long before

they are inundated by an avalanche of communications.
The truth is, as anyone who considers this Bill knows, that the Bill is primarily in the interests of the landlords. I do not say that all landlords are rapacious creatures, with hearts dyed in ink, but knowing the nature of all human beings, including landlords, I am certain that the landlords will welcome this Bill, and that if they could, they would hold a demonstration of thanksgiving at the Albert Hall or some other suitable place. The 450,000 people who now occupy these houses which are to be decontrolled cannot at the moment find alternative accommodation. A simple test of that would be to say to those 450,000 tenants, "You must clear out next week and find accommodation at the same rent as you are paying now." One knows that they could not possibly find it. Nor will they be able to find it next September. There is not accommodation at that rent. Therefore, it is obvious that if they are to remain in their present houses, or if they find alternative accommodation, it will be at a higher rent. There will not be a corresponding increase of income and, obviously, an extra burden will have to be borne and economies will have to be made in other directions. I know from experience in my own and other constituencies that this Bill will cast a dark shadow over many homes, which, while they appear in externals to be fairly substantial, are within, affected by what I may describe as the new kind of pauperism.
I am sorry the Minister has not seen his way to accept the proposal for tenancy courts. I do not go into that question because it is not dealt with in the Bill. I would merely remark in passing that the establishment of tenancy courts would have gone some way towards doing justice to tenants and enabling the innumerable problems of tenancy to be settled by specialists in a proper atmosphere. I am sorry, too, that the Minister has not seen his way to assist the small shopkeepers. There is a journal, favourable to the Government, which poses as the journal of the small shopkeeper but the small shopkeepers themselves will rapidly awake to a realisation of the facts.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is now going into something which is not in the Bill.

Mr. Sorensen: I understood that some of the Clauses of the Bill did affect small shopkeepers, but I do not wish to transgress your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would only add that, unfortunately, there are some hon. Members who do not realise the plight of their own constituents who have given them loyal and undeviating support. This Bill is a poor reward for that support, and I hope those hon. Members will receive growing indications of the fact that their constituents demand a greater measure of protection for their interests than they are receiving under this Bill.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Montague: We have come to the end of the discussions upon this Bill and not much remains to be said. The Government, in this Measure, have slavishly followed the majority report of the Ridley Committee, and although the Minister seemed to take credit for some concession in stating that the decontrol of houses lower than the upper B category was to be postponed for another four years, yet that is only the Ridley report, because the decontrol of the lower category, over a period of years and according to districts, was to have been begun by 1942 according to that report. One thing, however, can be said. The Government have recognised and admitted that it would be intolerable to suggest decontrol on the basis of the bare overcrowding statistics. That is not much to their credit, because it seems to be a matter of common sense. With that exception, the policy of the Government in this Bill and the terms of the Bill itself follow the Ridley report. We had evidence before the Ridley Committee, and the evidence coming from the side of those interested in house property almost without exception admitted that in some districts at least the decontrol of houses above £35 rate-able value in London and Scotland and above £20 in the Provinces would affect rents—rents would go up—though, some suggested, very slightly and only according to what would be desirable.
The question of the middle classes is raised, and we are told that there are plenty of houses for the middle classes. That term was frequently used before the Ridley Committee, but I want to point out that this is not solely a question of the middle classes. There are many people in London, thousands upon

thousands, ordinary mechanical workers and manual workers, who are compelled by force of circumstances, compelled, very often by the size of their families, to live in houses which are above the limit set for decontrol, that is to say, houses of £35 rate-able value. Two hon. Members opposite spoke about the absence of letters from constituents, but we had a tremendous amount of evidence upon the Ridley Committee from tenants' associations and bodies of that description, which showed that great hardship would result from decontrol at all, at the present time at any rate. I have not only had letters, but I have also seen hundreds of my constituents. I see them every week, and I have had illustrations and arguments which are unanswerable as to the inevitability of great hardship if this amount of decontrol is allowed to take place.
I received one letter only this morning. It does not refer to a controlled house, and it shows what will happen when houses of that category are decontrolled. It is a case of a constituent of mine with a family of three, who has to pay 22s. 6d. a week, an inclusive rent, for a flat in a house in my constituency. He gets no amenities at all. The landlady will not allow the use of the garden for drying clothes, and the tenant has to pay a laundry bill. He is a railway worker, and his wife is not allowed to use a copper. In that same house there is another flat, let at the same rent of 22s. 6d., and one single room, let at 8s., making a total of £2 13s. for the whole house, and the landlady herself has her own flat in the house, thus living rent free. The other tenant, who is also paying 22s. 6d., is a taxicab driver. The one who is a railway worker writes asking me if I can advise him or find him better accommodation. I could, of course, find him better accommodation under some circumstances. I could take him to the outskirts of London, on the other side, or to places like Dagenham or Morden, but he is a railway worker, and he has to be at work at three in the morning every other week; and in any case, even if his hours were reasonable, he would have to spend two hours a day in packed tube trains, with an expenditure of 6s. a week over and above his 22s. 6d. a week for rent. That is just one case to show that where there is no control there is extortion and increase of


rent, and that, I think, without doubt, will be the case in thousands upon thousands of instances in London and certainly in other towns in the country.
Take the question of what is called the lower middle-class people. Is it seriously suggested that there are plenty of houses for them? Figures can be given, of course. Plenty of averages were brought before the Ridley Committee; and we riddled some of them. Averages do not count because the average is a dehumanised method of dealing with a human problem. What does the average amount to? Plenty of houses are being run up and there is a rush of jerry-building. One need only take a coach ride or a railway ride out of London and look at the desirable residences that have been rushed up in every quarter. Approaching any city or town, one will see the same kind of thing. Take the case of a worker belonging to the lower middle class, say a bank clerk, a black-coated worker who has not only to wear a black coat but all the starched appurtenances belonging thereto, and who gets a wage of £3, or at the outside £3 10s. It is true that he can put down £15 or £25 and pay the rest in rent if he has got it to put down. He has to buy his season ticket and he has to starve his family to keep up appearances.
The houses that are being run up for that class in large numbers are included in the averages that are used to justify this Measure of control, but they are, to a very large extent, not built on any sound principles of construction. I do not want to blame builders as a class, but I know something about building and the kind of houses that are being rushed up. Some of them are built with inferior materials and in a thoroughly bad way. It may be an exaggeration, but I suggest that if some of these middle-class black-coated workers were to dig an air-raid precautions trench in their back gardens, their houses would fall down. I was told by a house agent seriously this morning that there are houses of that type in the northern area of London where, if entrenchments have to be dug for water, electricity or similar purposes, they have to do the job very carefully in case something slips and something happens to the foundation of the houses. That means that, although these people penalise

their families and have to live sparely to keep up appearances they have no guarantee or security, because in a few years their houses will become an incubus and a band of iron round their necks.
These are the types of houses that are being run up in huge numbers all over the country. They are the houses which make up the averages to show that there are plenty available for the middle-class worker, who is such a supporter of the Conservative party. It is remarkable how these people usually vote Conservative. I do not know whether they will when they find out what is happening to them under this Measure. These people who read their "Daily Mail" daily remind me of the aesthetic gentlemen in "Patience." Although they may be "steady and stolid-y," there is a doubt about the "jolly Bank holiday" aspect of the matter. That type of person, who imagines he has a stake in the country, will be injured by this Measure. In the discussion on the Report stage yesterday we had evidence to the effect that, with all their professions of sympathy with the small trader, the Government are letting the small trader down. The Minister is letting down the so-called middle-class black-coated workers in this Measure, which is a part of the gradual decontrol over a period of years until 1950. The Government do not let down the monopolist, the landlord and the speculator. Like all Tory Governments, this Government believes in serving the interests of its friends. When the four years are up and we have to consider decontrol upon a larger scale there may be a different Government in office, for by then the people will have found out who their friends really are.

11.41 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) ended on rather an excited note. I wonder whether he really believed all that he was saying at the moment. I should like to thank the House for the consideration which has been given to this Measure and to myself in the conducting of it. If I have not always been able to comply with the requests which have been made from various parts of the House, I regret it, but I have endeavoured to do my duty along the lines laid down by the Government as explained——

Mr. Buchanan: And by the Ridley Committee.

Sir K. Wood: —on the Second Reading of the Bill. It has been stated that this Measure was conceived in sin and wickedness, either in the mind of the Government or of myself; it has been suggested that there has been a terrible conspiracy to destroy the comfort of the hard working people of this country; but the position is seen to be quite different when we really trace the origin of this Measure. Its origin goes back to that Marley Report which hon. Members opposite do not like but to which I shall always look back with great affection. I was glad to see that the Chairman of the Committee which issued that report was alive and well in another place this evening. I hope that when this Measure arrives there we shall hear what Lord Marley has to say about it. I think that the only uncharitable thing which has been said about me to-night was said by two hon. Members whose calling ought to make them much more charitably-minded towards other people. I think the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) was the only one who attributed bad and wicked personal motives to me.

Mr. Sorensen: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would quote any uncharitable reference from me. On the contrary, I have the highest esteem for him.

Sir K. Wood: I will talk to the hon. Member privately. I hope that he will allow that other people have the same motives as, no doubt, he would like them to attribute to him. I do not think that it assists our discussions to attribute personal reasons——

Mr. Sorensen: What are they?

Sir K. Wood: As a matter of fact the origin of this Bill goes back to the two Committees which have been referred to so frequently in the Debate. I have quoted from the Marley Report so extensively on account of the remarkable constitution of that Committee. In the chair was Lord Marley, a Labour Peer. One member of the Committee was one of the most respected women Members of the Labour party, Dr. Marion Phillips. Another member was the hon. Member for Upton (Mr. Gardner) who, I think, has been let off very lightly in the proceedings on this Bill. Generally the com-

plexion of that Committee may be said to have been Labour. To what conclusion did they come on matters of principle? They came to the conclusion that it would be wise, in the interests of the tenants of this country, that as soon as there was a sufficiency of housing accommodation control should end. What is now being said from the Labour benches is that control is a good thing in itself.

Mr. Montague: What we said in the Minority Report, and what this party says on the question of the continuance of permanent control, is that it should be in the form of tenancy courts and not in the form of rent restriction, which is quite a different question.

Sir K. Wood: What did Lord Marley's Committee say?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: What did Gladstone say in 1889?

Sir K. Wood: Do not let us go back as far as that.

Mr. Buchanan: Who is Lord Marley?

Sir K. Wood: I will tell the hon. Gentleman privately. His committee gave a very firm recommendation on the subject of tenancy courts, and on this was founded very largely the recommendation made by the majority of the Ridley Committee. I have no reason to depart from the statement that I made when I introduced this Measure that I believe it is a practical and reasonable contribution towards an admittedly difficult problem. I maintain that we have endeavoured in reason and justice to hold the scales as evenly as we could between the interests of landlords and tenants.
A point that has been overlooked, perhaps of necessity, because we have been dealing with Amendments of a certain class, is that by this Measure we are ensuring to the tenants further protection for houses in the lower B category to the number of something like 650,000.

Mr. McEntee: You could not do otherwise.

Sir K. Wood: I do not think the hon. Gentleman should say that. One of the proposals in the Bill is to do that. As to how one should describe this Measure, I hope that the hon. Member for West Leyton, whose special duty it is to put forward truth and honesty, will not de-


scribe it, when he gets up on the platform, as he did in this House. It is only right that I should tell him that one of the things which the Government have done is to ensure further protection to something like 650,000 homes of the lower B type.

Mr. Buchanan: For how long?

Sir K. Wood: If the hon. Gentleman looks he will see that it lasts till 1942. If the hon. Member for West Leyton will give some credit for this in describing the Measure, I shall have more regard for him than otherwise. Hon. Members can equally say that under these proposals a number of upper B class tenants will be decontrolled, and that would be a fair summary of them. I should be quite content if the two statements were made in conjunction, because i could then be said that the Government had endeavoured to hold the balance as evenly as they could, and to carry out the recommendations of the committees which were specially set up to consider this matter.
Hon. Members have made many prophesies to-night as to the consequences of decontrol of the upper B class houses. Similar dismal forebodings were made about the decontrol of the A houses. What was said then? "All those people would be sacrificed at one stroke." One might almost hear the same words to-night about the upper B class houses. Curiously enough, the words that we heard to-night about throwing these people to the wolves were heard when the A houses were decontrolled. Hon. Members said it was a political blunder of the first magnitude. As a matter of fact, I looked up the evidence of the Ridley Committee. I was not able to read it all, but one witness in whom I am particularly interested, since he is the chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, when asked whether any hardship had flowed from the decontrol of the A houses, replied that he could not say that there had. I hope there will be an equally satisfactory result so far as the upper B houses are concerned.
London is in a special position. Exceptional treatment has always been given to it. If you look at the position of the upper B class houses in England and Wales, you see that the rate-able value

varies between £20 and £35, whereas in London the bulk of the B class houses will undoubtedly be in the upper B category. Further, the majority of the upper B class in London will probably be occupied by two or more families and control will therefore be continued by the Bill. When regard is had to both these matters it will be agreed that measure of special consideration has been given to London.
I have only one other question to answer. One of my hon. Friends asked about local authorities giving advice on this matter, but that would not be without difficulty, especially when proceedings were pending. A number of authorities already give advice, and I will perhaps take an opportunity when this Bill is on the Statute Book to issue a communication to local authorities.

Mr. Buchanan: Make it available to Members.

Sir K. Wood: I will send copies to hon. Members.

SCOTTISH LAND COURT BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

POOR'S ALLOTMENT IN HANWELL BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Tuesday, 26th April.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.